Surendra Giri vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest

3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is class-V pass, was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1986. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 13.04.2011, with effect from 13.04.2010, as specifically 2 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 finds place in the service book, a copy of which is annexure-SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6, dated 11.11.2024.

4. As per the service book, the petitioner's date of birth is recorded as

01.12.1965

5. The dispute arose when the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 was issued by the Corporation, indicating that the petitioner is due to retire on superannuation by treating his date of birth as 15.01.1964.

6. Raising a challenge to the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

7. The sheet anchor for the petitioner's date of birth being 01.12.1965 is the endorsement in the service book, which specifically records the petitioner's date of birth both in numerals and in words as "1-12-1965 (एक िदसम्बर उन्नीस सौ पैसठ)".

8. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6, states that the service book was prepared in the year 2010, after the petitioner had been regularized in service vide order dated 13.04.2011

9. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the date of birth stands recorded as 01.12.1965 in the service book, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to retire the petitioner by treating his date of birth as 15.01.1964, and thus the petition is for setting aside the impugned order of retirement and for continuing the services of the petitioner till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date of birth of 01.12.1965, i.e., till

31.12.2025.

10. In this regard, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:108904, to argue that this Court has held that the date of birth of an employee who has not passed the High School cannot be changed once originally recorded at the time of entry into service.

11. Responding, Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for 3 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 respondents No. 2 to 6, argues that as per the seniority list issued by the respondents on 24.12.2003, a copy of which is annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 21.08.2024, the name of the petitioner stood placed at serial No. 19, duly recording his date of birth as

15.01.1964 and his date of entry into service as 16.02.1986. Further, contending that in the quarterly progression report sent by the competent authority, a copy of which is annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit, the date of birth of the petitioner is also indicated as

15.01.1964, which also finds in the Aadhaar Card originally produced by the petitioner and thus it is apparent that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.01.1964, which has stood all along, and merely because of an error committed in the entry in the service book by recording the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.12.1965, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit.

12. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, also states that the date of engagement of the petitioner as recorded in the seniority list is 16.02.1986.

13. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, states that in the service book, the date of engagement of the petitioner has been indicated as 16.02.1980, and consequently, in case the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 01.12.1965, he would have been 15 years of age and could not have validly been appointed.

14. The argument of Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, is that even if an erroneous entry has been made in the service book, yet the petitioner cannot derive any advantage therefrom, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited and another vs. Satya Ram and another, 2025 INSC 339 as well The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs. The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union and others, 2024 INSC 264.

15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

16. From a perusal of the records, it emerges that the petitioner, who 4 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 was engaged on 16.02.1986 as a daily wager and was regularized vide order dated 16.04.2011, is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 05.04.2024, whereby the petitioner has been informed that, as per his date of birth of 15.01.1964, he would stand retired on 31.01.2024. As per the petitioner, the date of birth is

01.12.1965, as duly finds place in the service book, and thus it is prayed that once the service book, prepared in the year 2010, has all along indicated the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.12.1965, the impugned order retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.01.2024 be set aside, and the respondents be directed to continue the services of the petitioner as per the date of birth of 01.12.1965 till 31.12.2025.

17. The sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioner is the date of birth of 01.12.1965, as admittedly recorded in the service book, which incidentally had also been perused by this Court when the original service book was produced, as specifically stands recorded in the order dated 12.11.2024.

18. The aforesaid date of birth, as recorded in the service book, would obviously be conclusive in all respects, more particularly when there is no interpolation made in the service book as far as the date of birth is concerned

19. However, the respondents have placed reliance on a seniority list issued on 24.12.2003, which recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964, as well as on the quarterly progression report, which also recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964 and the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner.

20. Suffice it to state that the entry made in the service book has to be treated as final so far as it pertains to the petitioner, keeping in view the facts of the case.

21. There is no dispute that the date of birth as recorded in the service book is 01.12.1965 and also that there is no interpolation in the service book so far as it pertains to the date of birth of the petitioner. Merely because the respondents had issued a seniority list on 24.12.2003 i.e. much prior to preparation of the service book in the year 2010 and the quarterly progression report, which indicated the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964, which incidentally are all 5 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 those documents issued both prior to and subsequent to the preparation of the service book in the year 2010, cannot give any advantage to the respondents, more particularly when both the seniority list and the quarterly progression report indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964 are contrary to the entry as recorded in the service book, which entry has to be treated as final keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not High School pass rather class-V pass and as per Rules 2 & 3 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, where a government servant has not passed High School or equivalent exam, his date of birth recorded in his service book shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth.

22. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Yadav (supra) wherein this Court has held as under :- "8. In my considered view without changing the date of birth originally recorded in the service book, an employee cannot be to retire. The basic philosophy behind the service jurisprudence is that there is contract of employment between employer and employee. The service book maintained by employer is a part of the contract of employment and any change therein has to first take place as it would be altering the condition of employment. The respondent local bodies was in clear error of law in superannuating the petitioner at an earlier age than what he would have attained as per service book entry.

9. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the contesting respondent local body by learned counsel appearing in that behalf has been that petitioner did not pass out class eight from the institution which he was relying upon and instead he passed out class 8th examination from another institution. The institution from which petitioner claimed to have passed out, it was one Avatar Yadav who was student and transfer certificate of Avatar Yadav has been brought on record, but I find that there is no date of birth entered in that certificate, nor certificate bears signature of Principal or seal of Principal, nor certificate carries any date of issuance. It seems to be document either got prepared for the purpose of the case to defend the decision of the Chairman or somehow obtained that to mislead the Court on facts. 6 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 .................

11. Learned counsel for the respondent local body has not been able to show any rule or law otherwise which may entitled the local body to change date of birth of employee originally entered in service book. In the circumstances provisions as contained under Rules 2 and 3 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 are reproduced hereunder: "2.[Determination of correct date of birth or age.-The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Goverment service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever].

3. Change of date of birth-Bona fide mistake.-The date of birth can be changed only if there was a bona fide mistake. The principle of estoppel will apply and hence the Government servant had indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of employment the Court should not change that date of birth."

12. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that date of birth of employee who has not passed the High School Certificate cannot be changed once originally recorded at the time of entry in service.

13. In my above view I find support in the judgments of a coordinate benches of this court in the case of Surendra Singh v. State of U.P and Others, 2019 5 ADJ 365, and of the Division 7 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 Bench judgment in the case of Mohan Singh v. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Ltd. And Others, 2012 (8) ADJ 383."

23. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Ram (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say that in the said case, the two respondents had been engaged in 1971 and 1973. There was no material to indicate their ages at that time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court presumed that, obviously, at the time of engagement they must have been major, i.e., 18 years of age when they were engaged in the service of a state instrumentality, and consequently would attain the age of 60 years in 2013 and 2015 respectively, and in any event had rendered forty years of service by 2013.

24. The said facts are not attracted in the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as it is not a case that the petitioner has rendered forty years of service under the respondent, and thus the said judgment would not have any applicability in the facts of the instant case.

25. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barsua Iron Ore Mines (supra) is concerned, it appears that therein an employee had initially entered service in the year 1972 and on the basis of an oral declaration, his date of birth was recorded as 27.12.1948. The said date was accepted and also signed by the employee concerned. In the year 1982, the employee changed his initially recorded date of birth from 1948 to 1955, again without providing any documentary proof. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no occasion for the employee concerned to change his date of birth after almost a decade.

26. Though the learned counsel for the respondents along with the supplementary counter affidavit has filed a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as annexure-SCA-3, namely, Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, yet no arguments were advanced upon the same.

27. However, considering that the said judgment is on record, the Court also proceeds to consider the said judgment.

28. The said judgment pertained to an employee having preferred an 8 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 application for change of his date of birth from 04.03.1950, as recorded in his service records at the time of his appointment in year 1982, to 20.01.1955, which application was filed in the year 2009 just prior to his retirement on 31.03.2010. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an application for change in date of birth at the fag end of the career would be impermissible.

29. Again, the said judgment would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case, once the petitioner is claiming to be retired on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the service records and has not prayed for any change in his date of birth.

30. In the instant case, it is not that the petitioner has changed his date of birth after having entered into service, inasmuch as admittedly the date of birth recorded at the time of preparation of the service book, i.e., in the year 2010, still continues to remain the same as of date, i.e., 01.12.1965. As already indicated, there is no interpolation or manipulation in the said date of birth. Thus, merely because the respondents have issued an erroneous seniority list and quarterly progression report indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964, the same would not resile from the date of birth as recorded in the service book, i.e., 01.12.1965.

31. So far as the argument of Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, that the entry into service of the petitioner as recorded in the service book is 16.02.1980, the said argument also merits to be rejected and is rejected for there is a clear discrepancy in the date of appointment mentioned in the seniority list (16.02.1986) vis-a-vis the service book (16.02.1980) and moreover, in the instant case, the dispute does not pertain to date of appointment of the petitioner; rather pertains to date of birth.

32. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 05.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

33. A writ of mandamus is issued, commanding the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the basis of his date of birth as

01.12.1965. As the petitioner has been retired by the respondents with effect from 31.01.2024, as such, the petitioner would also be 9 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 entitled for arrears of pay for the said period of service and other consequential benefit till his reinstatement in pursuance to this order.

34. The arrears of pay are being granted to the petitioner keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 AIR 2010, wherein it has been held that in case of no fault of the employee, if he is kept away from work, the respondents cannot be allowed to say that the principle of no work no pay would be applicable.

35. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 11, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner, who is class-V pass, was appointed as a daily wager in the year 1986. The services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 13.04.2011, with effect from 13.04.2010, as specifically 2 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 finds place in the service book, a copy of which is annexure-SCA-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6, dated 11.11.2024.

4. As per the service book, the petitioner's date of birth is recorded as

01.12.1965

5. The dispute arose when the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 was issued by the Corporation, indicating that the petitioner is due to retire on superannuation by treating his date of birth as 15.01.1964.

6. Raising a challenge to the said order, the instant petition has been filed.

7. The sheet anchor for the petitioner's date of birth being 01.12.1965 is the endorsement in the service book, which specifically records the petitioner's date of birth both in numerals and in words as "1-12-1965 (एक िदसम्बर उन्नीस सौ पैसठ)".

8. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6, states that the service book was prepared in the year 2010, after the petitioner had been regularized in service vide order dated 13.04.2011

9. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the date of birth stands recorded as 01.12.1965 in the service book, consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to retire the petitioner by treating his date of birth as 15.01.1964, and thus the petition is for setting aside the impugned order of retirement and for continuing the services of the petitioner till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date of birth of 01.12.1965, i.e., till

31.12.2025.

10. In this regard, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:108904, to argue that this Court has held that the date of birth of an employee who has not passed the High School cannot be changed once originally recorded at the time of entry into service.

11. Responding, Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for 3 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 respondents No. 2 to 6, argues that as per the seniority list issued by the respondents on 24.12.2003, a copy of which is annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit dated 21.08.2024, the name of the petitioner stood placed at serial No. 19, duly recording his date of birth as

15.01.1964 and his date of entry into service as 16.02.1986. Further, contending that in the quarterly progression report sent by the competent authority, a copy of which is annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit, the date of birth of the petitioner is also indicated as

15.01.1964, which also finds in the Aadhaar Card originally produced by the petitioner and thus it is apparent that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.01.1964, which has stood all along, and merely because of an error committed in the entry in the service book by recording the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.12.1965, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit.

12. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, also states that the date of engagement of the petitioner as recorded in the seniority list is 16.02.1986.

13. Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, states that in the service book, the date of engagement of the petitioner has been indicated as 16.02.1980, and consequently, in case the date of birth of the petitioner is taken as 01.12.1965, he would have been 15 years of age and could not have validly been appointed.

14. The argument of Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, is that even if an erroneous entry has been made in the service book, yet the petitioner cannot derive any advantage therefrom, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Limited and another vs. Satya Ram and another, 2025 INSC 339 as well The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines vs. The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union and others, 2024 INSC 264.

15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

16. From a perusal of the records, it emerges that the petitioner, who 4 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 was engaged on 16.02.1986 as a daily wager and was regularized vide order dated 16.04.2011, is before this Court raising a challenge to the order dated 05.04.2024, whereby the petitioner has been informed that, as per his date of birth of 15.01.1964, he would stand retired on 31.01.2024. As per the petitioner, the date of birth is

01.12.1965, as duly finds place in the service book, and thus it is prayed that once the service book, prepared in the year 2010, has all along indicated the date of birth of the petitioner as 01.12.1965, the impugned order retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.01.2024 be set aside, and the respondents be directed to continue the services of the petitioner as per the date of birth of 01.12.1965 till 31.12.2025.

17. The sheet anchor of the claim of the petitioner is the date of birth of 01.12.1965, as admittedly recorded in the service book, which incidentally had also been perused by this Court when the original service book was produced, as specifically stands recorded in the order dated 12.11.2024.

18. The aforesaid date of birth, as recorded in the service book, would obviously be conclusive in all respects, more particularly when there is no interpolation made in the service book as far as the date of birth is concerned

19. However, the respondents have placed reliance on a seniority list issued on 24.12.2003, which recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964, as well as on the quarterly progression report, which also recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964 and the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner.

20. Suffice it to state that the entry made in the service book has to be treated as final so far as it pertains to the petitioner, keeping in view the facts of the case.

21. There is no dispute that the date of birth as recorded in the service book is 01.12.1965 and also that there is no interpolation in the service book so far as it pertains to the date of birth of the petitioner. Merely because the respondents had issued a seniority list on 24.12.2003 i.e. much prior to preparation of the service book in the year 2010 and the quarterly progression report, which indicated the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964, which incidentally are all 5 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 those documents issued both prior to and subsequent to the preparation of the service book in the year 2010, cannot give any advantage to the respondents, more particularly when both the seniority list and the quarterly progression report indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964 are contrary to the entry as recorded in the service book, which entry has to be treated as final keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not High School pass rather class-V pass and as per Rules 2 & 3 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, where a government servant has not passed High School or equivalent exam, his date of birth recorded in his service book shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth.

22. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Yadav (supra) wherein this Court has held as under :- "8. In my considered view without changing the date of birth originally recorded in the service book, an employee cannot be to retire. The basic philosophy behind the service jurisprudence is that there is contract of employment between employer and employee. The service book maintained by employer is a part of the contract of employment and any change therein has to first take place as it would be altering the condition of employment. The respondent local bodies was in clear error of law in superannuating the petitioner at an earlier age than what he would have attained as per service book entry.

9. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the contesting respondent local body by learned counsel appearing in that behalf has been that petitioner did not pass out class eight from the institution which he was relying upon and instead he passed out class 8th examination from another institution. The institution from which petitioner claimed to have passed out, it was one Avatar Yadav who was student and transfer certificate of Avatar Yadav has been brought on record, but I find that there is no date of birth entered in that certificate, nor certificate bears signature of Principal or seal of Principal, nor certificate carries any date of issuance. It seems to be document either got prepared for the purpose of the case to defend the decision of the Chairman or somehow obtained that to mislead the Court on facts. 6 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 .................

11. Learned counsel for the respondent local body has not been able to show any rule or law otherwise which may entitled the local body to change date of birth of employee originally entered in service book. In the circumstances provisions as contained under Rules 2 and 3 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 are reproduced hereunder: "2.[Determination of correct date of birth or age.-The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Goverment service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service, including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement or retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever].

3. Change of date of birth-Bona fide mistake.-The date of birth can be changed only if there was a bona fide mistake. The principle of estoppel will apply and hence the Government servant had indicated a particular date of birth in his application form or any other document at the time of employment the Court should not change that date of birth."

12. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that date of birth of employee who has not passed the High School Certificate cannot be changed once originally recorded at the time of entry in service.

13. In my above view I find support in the judgments of a coordinate benches of this court in the case of Surendra Singh v. State of U.P and Others, 2019 5 ADJ 365, and of the Division 7 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 Bench judgment in the case of Mohan Singh v. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Ltd. And Others, 2012 (8) ADJ 383."

23. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Ram (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say that in the said case, the two respondents had been engaged in 1971 and 1973. There was no material to indicate their ages at that time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court presumed that, obviously, at the time of engagement they must have been major, i.e., 18 years of age when they were engaged in the service of a state instrumentality, and consequently would attain the age of 60 years in 2013 and 2015 respectively, and in any event had rendered forty years of service by 2013.

24. The said facts are not attracted in the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as it is not a case that the petitioner has rendered forty years of service under the respondent, and thus the said judgment would not have any applicability in the facts of the instant case.

25. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Barsua Iron Ore Mines (supra) is concerned, it appears that therein an employee had initially entered service in the year 1972 and on the basis of an oral declaration, his date of birth was recorded as 27.12.1948. The said date was accepted and also signed by the employee concerned. In the year 1982, the employee changed his initially recorded date of birth from 1948 to 1955, again without providing any documentary proof. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no occasion for the employee concerned to change his date of birth after almost a decade.

26. Though the learned counsel for the respondents along with the supplementary counter affidavit has filed a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as annexure-SCA-3, namely, Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411, yet no arguments were advanced upon the same.

27. However, considering that the said judgment is on record, the Court also proceeds to consider the said judgment.

28. The said judgment pertained to an employee having preferred an 8 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 application for change of his date of birth from 04.03.1950, as recorded in his service records at the time of his appointment in year 1982, to 20.01.1955, which application was filed in the year 2009 just prior to his retirement on 31.03.2010. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an application for change in date of birth at the fag end of the career would be impermissible.

29. Again, the said judgment would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case, once the petitioner is claiming to be retired on the basis of his date of birth as recorded in the service records and has not prayed for any change in his date of birth.

30. In the instant case, it is not that the petitioner has changed his date of birth after having entered into service, inasmuch as admittedly the date of birth recorded at the time of preparation of the service book, i.e., in the year 2010, still continues to remain the same as of date, i.e., 01.12.1965. As already indicated, there is no interpolation or manipulation in the said date of birth. Thus, merely because the respondents have issued an erroneous seniority list and quarterly progression report indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.01.1964, the same would not resile from the date of birth as recorded in the service book, i.e., 01.12.1965.

31. So far as the argument of Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6, that the entry into service of the petitioner as recorded in the service book is 16.02.1980, the said argument also merits to be rejected and is rejected for there is a clear discrepancy in the date of appointment mentioned in the seniority list (16.02.1986) vis-a-vis the service book (16.02.1980) and moreover, in the instant case, the dispute does not pertain to date of appointment of the petitioner; rather pertains to date of birth.

32. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 05.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside.

33. A writ of mandamus is issued, commanding the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the basis of his date of birth as

01.12.1965. As the petitioner has been retired by the respondents with effect from 31.01.2024, as such, the petitioner would also be 9 WRIA No. 6045 of 2024 entitled for arrears of pay for the said period of service and other consequential benefit till his reinstatement in pursuance to this order.

34. The arrears of pay are being granted to the petitioner keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 AIR 2010, wherein it has been held that in case of no fault of the employee, if he is kept away from work, the respondents cannot be allowed to say that the principle of no work no pay would be applicable.

35. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 11, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench