Shobhawati Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugarcane

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudeep Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed seeking challenge to the retirement notice dated 31.01.2023 and the consequential order dated 21.07.2023. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to continue on the post of peon after 31.08.2023 and for quashing of the age determination certificate dated 27.08.2008 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki has also been sought.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's husband late Jamidar Singh passed away in harness due to which petitioner was provided compassionate appointment on 22.09.2009.

4. It is submitted that since petitioner was virtually illiterate, having not cleared High School Examination and was primarily home schooled, she was unable to understand the entries made in the service-book at the time of entry into service and therefore was unable to discern the date of birth as entered into service-book. It is also submitted that at the time of affixing petitioner's 2 WRIA No. 6570 of 2023 column signature pertaining to date of birth was not filled up with such entry being made subsequently without petitioner’s knowledge. service-book,

5. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the fact that earlier opposite parties themselves had corrected the date of birth of petitioner from 08.12.1960 to 27.08.1963 on the basis of certificate of the C.M.O. but have ignored the subsequent certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated 22.01.2025 indicating petitioner’s age as 56 years. It is submitted that since the subsequent certificate by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki is of the X-ray report, it can be assumed that the age certificate has been issued on the basis of ossification test and was required to be considered by opposite parties.

6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the petitioner has not been able to provide any cogent explanation for belated challenge to the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer in 2008. It is also submitted that as per settled law, it is the date of birth entered in the service-book at the time of entry into service which is required to be taken into account as has been done by the answering opposite parties. Learned counsel has also submitted that change in date of birth cannot be effected at such a belated stage at the time of superannuation. It is therefore submitted that impugned orders do not warrant any interference.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 21.07.2023, it transpires that petitioner was provided compassionate appointment vide order dated 22.09.2009. Prior to that, petitioner had submitted an application along with a notarized affidavit dated 14.05.2007 stating that the date of birth as submitted by her deceased husband in the nomination form as 08.12.1960 was correct. The order also indicates certain contradiction with regard to age of petitioner in the notarized affidavit, the issue was referred to 3 WRIA No. 6570 of 2023 the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki who submitted his report on 27.08.2008 indicating petitioner's age at that time as 45 years and in pursuance thereof, date of birth of petitioner was entered into the records as 27.08.1963.

8. It also appears from record and is undisputed that prior to filing of this petition in the year 2023, no challenge was effected by petitioner against the report of Chief Medical Officer dated 27.08.2003. On the contrary, it appears that the said certificate was the basis of appointment of petitioner which she accepted willingly and therefore would be now barred by principle of estoppel from challenging the same at such a belated stage at the time of her superannuation.

9. The document brought on record as Annexure RA3 along with rejoinder affidavit being a copy of the service-book of petitioner also belies averments made in the petition since the document clearly indicates date of birth of petitioner as 27.08.1963 and bears not only signatures but also of the attesting officer.

10. The primary thrust of petitioner's submission is based on the subsequent certificate dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki indicating her age as 56 years.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, no reliance can be placed on the said document primarily for the reason that it has been filed during the course of pendency of petition and further more since the aforesaid document does not indicate any ossification test having taken place.

12. It is also evident that the petitioner has never challenged the initial report of the Chief Medical Officer issued in the year 2008 prior to year 2023.

13. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the transfer certificate allegedly produced by the petitioner before opposite parties. The aforesaid factor also would not be very much relevant 4 WRIA No. 6570 of 2023 considering the fact that petitioner admittedly has not passed High School and obtained employment on the basis of subsequent report of Chief Medical Officer dated 27.08.2008.

14. With regard to law pertaining to change of date of birth, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited versus T.P. Nataraja And Ors. reported in (2021)12 Supreme Court Cases 27 has held as follows:- "11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarise as under: (i)application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii)even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii)application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag- end of service and /or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."

15. In view of the aforesaid settled law, which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that petitioner is not only barred by principle of estoppel but also cannot not now seek change her date of birth at the fag end of her career.

16. In view of aforesaid discussion, no good ground is made out for grant of indulgence. The petition therefore fails and dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 27, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sudeep Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed seeking challenge to the retirement notice dated 31.01.2023 and the consequential order dated 21.07.2023. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to permit petitioner to continue on the post of peon after 31.08.2023 and for quashing of the age determination certificate dated 27.08.2008 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki has also been sought.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's husband late Jamidar Singh passed away in harness due to which petitioner was provided compassionate appointment on 22.09.2009.

4. It is submitted that since petitioner was virtually illiterate, having not cleared High School Examination and was primarily home schooled, she was unable to understand the entries made in the service-book at the time of entry into service and therefore was unable to discern the date of birth as entered into service-book. It is also submitted that at the time of affixing petitioner's 2 WRIA No. 6570 of 2023 column signature pertaining to date of birth was not filled up with such entry being made subsequently without petitioner’s knowledge. service-book,

5. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the fact that earlier opposite parties themselves had corrected the date of birth of petitioner from 08.12.1960 to 27.08.1963 on the basis of certificate of the C.M.O. but have ignored the subsequent certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated 22.01.2025 indicating petitioner’s age as 56 years. It is submitted that since the subsequent certificate by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki is of the X-ray report, it can be assumed that the age certificate has been issued on the basis of ossification test and was required to be considered by opposite parties.

6. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the petitioner has not been able to provide any cogent explanation for belated challenge to the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer in 2008. It is also submitted that as per settled law, it is the date of birth entered in the service-book at the time of entry into service which is required to be taken into account as has been done by the answering opposite parties. Learned counsel has also submitted that change in date of birth cannot be effected at such a belated stage at the time of superannuation. It is therefore submitted that impugned orders do not warrant any interference.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order dated 21.07.2023, it transpires that petitioner was provided compassionate appointment vide order dated 22.09.2009. Prior to that, petitioner had submitted an application along with a notarized affidavit dated 14.05.2007 stating that the date of birth as submitted by her deceased husband in the nomination form as 08.12.1960 was correct. The order also indicates certain contradiction with regard to age of petitioner in the notarized affidavit, the issue was referred to 3 WRIA No. 6570 of 2023 the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki who submitted his report on 27.08.2008 indicating petitioner's age at that time as 45 years and in pursuance thereof, date of birth of petitioner was entered into the records as 27.08.1963.

8. It also appears from record and is undisputed that prior to filing of this petition in the year 2023, no challenge was effected by petitioner against the report of Chief Medical Officer dated 27.08.2003. On the contrary, it appears that the said certificate was the basis of appointment of petitioner which she accepted willingly and therefore would be now barred by principle of estoppel from challenging the same at such a belated stage at the time of her superannuation.

9. The document brought on record as Annexure RA3 along with rejoinder affidavit being a copy of the service-book of petitioner also belies averments made in the petition since the document clearly indicates date of birth of petitioner as 27.08.1963 and bears not only signatures but also of the attesting officer.

10. The primary thrust of petitioner's submission is based on the subsequent certificate dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Barabanki indicating her age as 56 years.

11. In the considered opinion of this Court, no reliance can be placed on the said document primarily for the reason that it has been filed during the course of pendency of petition and further more since the aforesaid document does not indicate any ossification test having taken place.

12. It is also evident that the petitioner has never challenged the initial report of the Chief Medical Officer issued in the year 2008 prior to year 2023.

13. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the transfer certificate allegedly produced by the petitioner before opposite parties. The aforesaid factor also would not be very much relevant 4 WRIA No. 6570 of 2023 considering the fact that petitioner admittedly has not passed High School and obtained employment on the basis of subsequent report of Chief Medical Officer dated 27.08.2008.

14. With regard to law pertaining to change of date of birth, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited versus T.P. Nataraja And Ors. reported in (2021)12 Supreme Court Cases 27 has held as follows:- "11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarise as under: (i)application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii)even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii)application can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also more particularly when it is made at the fag- end of service and /or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation."

15. In view of the aforesaid settled law, which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that petitioner is not only barred by principle of estoppel but also cannot not now seek change her date of birth at the fag end of her career.

16. In view of aforesaid discussion, no good ground is made out for grant of indulgence. The petition therefore fails and dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 27, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench