# Jagbeer Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 662
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-10
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 11079 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagbeer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53019
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Retirement
-
Determination of date of birth - Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules,
1974 - Rules 2 & 3 - For a government
servant, who is not a matriculate or the
holder of an equivalent certificate for the
determination
of his
DOB,
the
DOB
recorded in the service book at the time of
entry into service by mandate of Rule 2
has to be deemed as his correct DOB for
all
purposes,
which
include
superannuation. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974
is unequivocal, in that, that certificates of
education below that of the high-school or an
equivalent certificate are irrelevant for the
purpose of a determination of a person's age.
(Para 17)

B. Words and Phrases - 'deemed' - The
employment of the expression "deemed"
in the context of Rule 2 is of profound
relevance. (Para 17)

It is for the purpose of curtailing controversy
related to age of non-matriculate employees in
the lower grades of government servants,
assuming that there would be no dependable
testimonial about it, the statute raises a fiction
that the DOB or age recorded in the service
book at the time of entry into service shall be
deemed to be correct for all purposes u/Rule 2,
which
includes
superannuation.
No
other
evidence
about
such
a
non-matriculate
employee's DOB is, therefore, to be let in or
examined at all. (Para 17)

Since there is no cavil about the issue that the
petitioner's DOB, that was originally recorded,
was 20.02.1967, and later on changed on the
basis of the notarial affidavit dated 09.01.2012
furnished by the petitioner, the change is clearly
in the teeth of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974.
Moreover, by virtue of Rule 3, the Rules of 1974
have overriding effect over all other rules. The
petitioner's DOB originally recorded in his
service book, to wit, 20.02.1967, has to be
regarded as his correct and immutable DOB.
(Para 17, 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Smt. Kalyani Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2023
AHC 242352; 2024 (2) ADJ 271 (Para 17)

Present petition assails office memo dated
13.05.2024
and
the
order
dated
03.07.2024,
directing
the
petitioner's
retirement on 31.08.2024, upon attaining
the age of superannuation. Both these
orders have been made by the Works
Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division,
Meerut.

## Text

662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 2 ILRA 662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 11079 of 2024

Jagbeer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Srivastava, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel for the State

A.
Service
Law
-
Retirement
-
Determination of date of birth - Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules,
1974 - Rules 2 & 3 - For a government
servant, who is not a matriculate or the
holder of an equivalent certificate for the
determination
of his
DOB,
the
DOB
recorded in the service book at the time of
entry into service by mandate of Rule 2
has to be deemed as his correct DOB for
all
purposes,
which
include
superannuation. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974
is unequivocal, in that, that certificates of
education below that of the high-school or an
equivalent certificate are irrelevant for the
purpose of a determination of a person's age.
(Para 17)

B. Words and Phrases - 'deemed' - The
employment of the expression "deemed"
in the context of Rule 2 is of profound
relevance. (Para 17)

It is for the purpose of curtailing controversy
related to age of non-matriculate employees in
the lower grades of government servants,
assuming that there would be no dependable
testimonial about it, the statute raises a fiction
that the DOB or age recorded in the service
book at the time of entry into service shall be
deemed to be correct for all purposes u/Rule 2,
which
includes
superannuation.
No
other
evidence
about
such
a
non-matriculate
employee's DOB is, therefore, to be let in or
examined at all. (Para 17)

Since there is no cavil about the issue that the
petitioner's DOB, that was originally recorded,
was 20.02.1967, and later on changed on the
basis of the notarial affidavit dated 09.01.2012
furnished by the petitioner, the change is clearly
in the teeth of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974.
Moreover, by virtue of Rule 3, the Rules of 1974
have overriding effect over all other rules. The
petitioner's DOB originally recorded in his
service book, to wit, 20.02.1967, has to be
regarded as his correct and immutable DOB.
(Para 17, 18)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

Smt. Kalyani Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2023
AHC 242352; 2024 (2) ADJ 271 (Para 17)

Present petition assails office memo dated
13.05.2024
and
the
order
dated
03.07.2024,
directing
the
petitioner's
retirement on 31.08.2024, upon attaining
the age of superannuation. Both these
orders have been made by the Works
Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division,
Meerut.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against
the office memo dated 13.05.2024 and the
order dated 03.07.2024, directing the
petitioner's retirement on 31.08.2024, upon
attaining the age of superannuation. Both
these orders have been made by the Works
Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division,
Meerut.

2. The facts giving rise to this
petition are these :
2 All. Jagbeer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
663
 It is not clear how the petitioner's
appointment
in
the
respondents'
Establishment is connected to his father's
death in a road accident, as neither the
petitioner asserts the fact that his father was
employed with the respondents and that he
was appointed on compassionate grounds,
nor does his letter of appointment dated
12.04.1983 issued by the Works Manager,
Irrigation Division, Meerut, shows that
explicitly. There is no issue about the fact
that the petitioner was indeed appointed on
12.04.1983
in
the
respondent's
Establishment as an unskilled labourer.
Therefore, we proceed on the edifice of the
fact that the petitioner was appointed in the
respondents' Establishment on 12.04.1983,
as aforesaid.

3. Apparently, the petitioner continued
in service and was serving as a Mechanic
Grade-I in the Establishment of the Works
Manager, respondent No. 3, when he was
served with a notice of retirement dated
13.05.2024, saying that he would retire
from service on 31.08.2024, upon attaining
the age of superannuation, to wit, 60 years.
The petitioner appears to have represented
the matter before the Works Manager with
a case that his date of birth was 20.02.1967,
entitling him to continue in service until
28.02.2027. This application was rejected
by the order dated 03.07.2024 made by the
Works Manager, for reasons indicated, that
we would presently detail.

4. It is the petitioner's case that he
passed his Class VIII examination in the
year 1982 from the Shri Sanjay Gandhi
Memorial Vidyalaya, Salarpur, Meerut and
according to the school-leaving certificate
issued by the Institution aforesaid, the
petitioner's date of birth is 20.02.1967. He
appeared for his high-school examination
in the year 1985, but failed. There is a highschool marksheet that the petitioner has
brought on record, issued by the Uttar
Pradesh Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, which shows the
petitioner's date of birth to be 20.02.1967.
The petitioner also cites a document of
original probative value about his age. It is
a certificate issued by some functionary in
the Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut,
called the Mukhya Samaypal. A photostat
copy of the document is annexed as
Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. This
document too shows the petitioner's date of
birth to be 20.02.1967, the date of
appointment as 01.04.1983 and his date of
retirement as 31.03.2025.

5. The petitioner appears to have
further represented his cause through a
representation dated Nil, again addressed to
the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop
Division, Meerut, seeking a restoration of
his date of birth in his service records as
20.02.1967 instead of 01.09.1964.

6.
This
representation
was
still
pending, when the petitioner, realising the
futility of the remedy, moved this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution on
24.07.2024, a little over a month ahead of
his scheduled retirement, in terms of the
orders impugned. This petition came up for
admission on 05.08.2024, when this Court
summoned the petitioner's service book in
original from the custody of the Works
Manager, Irrigation Workshop Division,
Meerut and the Assistant Engineer-II,
Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut,
posting the matter on 08.08.2024. On
08.08.2024, a notice of motion was issued,
after a perusal of the petitioner's service
book, by a very detailed order, asking the
Works Manager and the Superintending
Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Circle,
Lucknow to show cause in the matter. On
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14.08.2024, two personal affidavits were
filed,
one
by
the
Works
Manager,
respondent No. 3 and the other, by the
Superintending Engineer, respondent No. 2.
The affidavits were treated as counter
affidavits in the matter. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner waived his right to file a
rejoinder. The petition was admitted to
hearing,
which
proceeded
forthwith.
Judgment was reserved.

7. It may be remarked here that the
petitioner's service book produced earlier,
that was directed to be retained in a sealed
cover with the learned Registrar General,
was perused by the Court, when the matter
was heard.

8. In the personal affidavit filed by the
Works Manager, the stand taken is that the
petitioner
was
appointed
in
the
respondents' Establishment as an unskilled
labourer on 01.04.1983, considering him a
major. Later on, the petitioner, after taking
permission from the respondents, sat his
high-school examination as a private
candidate in the academic session 1984-85.
The mark-sheet issued to the petitioner
shows his date of birth as 20.02.1967,
which is, apparently, incorrect, according
to the respondents, for the reason that the
petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1983,
considering him a major. About the
Transfer Certificate issued by Shri Sanjay
Gandhi Memorial Vidyalaya, Salarpur,
Meerut dated 04.07.1982, it is averred in
paragraph No. 7 of the Works Manager's
affidavit that the document is suspect and
its genuineness doubtful. In order to
substantiate the respondents' stand about
the fidelity of this mark-sheet, it is said in
the affidavit under reference that there is
overwriting noticeable in the document. It
is also said that it is strange that the
Transfer Certificate does not mention to
which class the petitioner was admitted in
the Institution, while the reason for leaving
the Institution is the petitioner passing out
Class VIII. It is also mentioned that the
sentence "कक्षा आठ उत्तीणग" shows clear-cut
overwriting done. It is also the respondents'
case that likewise, there are several other
overwritten words noticeable, that create
doubt about the genuineness of the Transfer
Certificate issued on 04.07.1982 by the
Institution.

9. It is next said that it is on the basis
of
the
aforesaid
fabricated
Transfer
Certificate that the petitioner appeared as a
private
candidate
in
his
high-school
examination, where he got his date of birth
recorded as 20.02.1967. It is this date of
birth which is shown on his high-school
mark-sheet. The Works Managers goes on
to say that feeling guilty and remorseful for
the manipulation in record that the
petitioner had done, he filed a notarial
affidavit on 19.01.2012 with the Works
Manager at the relevant time, one A.K.
Agarwal, where he has said that he was
appointed on 01.04.1983, aged 18 years and 7
months. This affidavit was filed, according to
the Works Manager, to spare himself of the
consequences of the manipulation done about
his age by the petitioner. The stand further is
that on the basis of the affidavit dated
09.01.2012 filed by the petitioner, his date of
birth in the service book has been recorded as
01.09.1964 by the then Assistant Engineer
(Time Office), who was the custodian of the
service book. The then incumbent Assistant
Engineer has also retired from service. It is,
nevertheless, averred that it seems to be
correct that the petitioner was a major at the
time of employment as an unskilled labourer
on 01.04.1983.

10. It is finally said on behalf of the
respondents by the Works Manager that
2 All. Jagbeer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
665
considering his date of birth in the notarial
affidavit dated 09.01.2012, the petitioner
has been superannuated on 31.08.2024. The
Superintending Engineer has also taken an
identical stand.

11. Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.

12. A perusal of the service book
shows that the petitioner's date of birth,
originally recorded on the 3rd page of the
service book in F.R. Form No. 13, is in
blue ink. It is written both in words and
figures. It is 20.02.1967. It is signed by the
petitioner, also in blue ink. The other
entries in the service book are in a different
hand and by a different pen, all in black
ink. The originally recorded date of birth in
blue ink is entered in Column No. 5 meant
for recording the date of birth. However, in
the
fourth
column
relating
to
the
petitioner's father's name and his place of
residence, written in brackets are the words
"शपत पत्र के अनु ार ितमसतसथ 01.09.1964". This is
clearly an alteration in the date of birth
originally recorded in the appropriate
column i.e. Column No. 5 in blue ink. The
altered entry, which shows it to be based on
affidavit, is not initialed, nor signed by any
official of the Establishment, but, that may
not be of much consequence.

13. Despite this fact about alterations
in the date of birth in a different hand and
ink noticed in the order dated 08.08.2024,
by which a notice of motion was issued, the
respondents, in their affidavits, do not deny
for a fact that the petitioner's date of birth,
originally recorded, was 20.02.1967. Even
otherwise, the other date of birth recorded
against the petitioner's father's name in
Column No. 4 in brackets, is a changed and
later entered date of birth. Since it is
entered against a column meant for a
different purpose and also gives the basis
for the said date by employing the words
"शपत पत्र के अनु ार", there is no cavil on facts
that the petitioner's date of birth was
altered by the respondents from 20.02.1967
to 01.09.1964 in his service book. The
respondents say that the petitioner gave an
affidavit volunteering the change, because
he wanted to insulate himself from any
possible action about forgery in his Class
VIII mark-sheet, which he has utilized to
sit in the high-school examination, while in
service. This does not appear to be very
radical, for the reason that the entries in the
service book date back to 01.04.1983 and
the
petitioner
sat
his
high-school
examination during the session 1984-85,
after
taking
permission
from
the
respondents. Therefore, by the apparent
tenor of the service book, the earliest entry
about the petitioner's date of birth was
made before the petitioner sat his highschool examination and failed there. There
is also no basis in the earliest entry in the
relevant column about the petitioner's date
of birth. As such, there was no reason for
the petitioner to be driven by any motive of
insulating himself against action or even
remorse, as the respondents say, about
manipulating his date of birth in his Class
VIII Transfer Certificate, on the basis of
which, the petitioner later on sat in his
high-school examination.

14. All this is pure conjecture on
the respondents' part. Apparently, the
reason why the petitioner gave the affidavit
dated 09.01.2012 was that he was either
placed in some kind of a fear or faced some
kind of a threat about the consequence of
being employed in government service as a
minor, which would be the case if the
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner's
date
of
birth,
originally
recorded in his service book, were
accepted. The petitioner joined as a casual
labourer on 01.04.1983, and going by his
date of birth originally recorded in his
service book, to wit, the 20.02.1967, he
would be aged 16 years and 2 months from
the date he was employed.

15. There is much misconception
about the consequences of this kind of an
employment, both with the employers and
employees,
particularly,
in
the
State
employment.
Some
officers
of
the
Government, who act for the State, believe
that the employment of a minor would
render his appointment void or make him
liable for an offence of cheating etc. The
employees also harbour the same belief. It
must be acknowledged for a fact that there
was quite a long period of time in the
yesteryears, when minors above a certain
age were employed in government service
on Class VI jobs, without much thought
being spared to the issue. The legal
proposition about such employees and their
rights is that the years of service that they
put in before attaining the age of majority
are to be discounted from their period of
service for various purposes. The flaw,
however,
does
not
invalidate
the
appointment. Such service is usually
referred to as "Boy Service". It is also to be
remarked that for some Class IV posts in
yesteryears, the age of eligibility was 16
years, and not 18. But, we do not say
anything about that, because none of the
parties placed the relevant rules applicable
at the relevant time in this case as to
eligibility.
Thus,
notwithstanding
the
petitioner's age, as originally recorded,
making him a minor at the time when he
was appointed to the Class IV post of a
labourer, there was no reason for the
respondents to castigate the petitioner's
conduct about it, or put him under pressure
to furnish an affidavit about the fact that at
the time when he entered service, he was
aged 18 years and 7 months and then,
redetermine his date of birth on that basis.

16. Now, what is to be seen is the
effect of the affidavit dated 09.01.2012,
that the petitioner furnished. The said
affidavit acknowledges the fact that the
petitioner was aged 18 years and 7 months
at
the
time
when
he
entered
the
respondents'
service.
Admittedly,
the
petitioner's
date
of
birth,
originally
recorded in the service book, is 20.02.1967.
Would this affidavit have the effect of
entitling the respondents to alter the
petitioner's date of birth? We think not.
The answer is to be found in Rules 2 and 3
of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to
Services (Determination of Date of Birth)
Rules, 19741. Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules of
1974 read :

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 Government
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.
2 All. Jagbeer Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
667

3. Overriding effect.- These
rules shall have effect, notwithstanding
anything contrary contained in the relevant
service rules or orders.

17. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974 is
unequivocal, in that, that certificates of
education below that of the high-school or
an equivalent certificate are irrelevant for
the purpose of a determination of a
person's age. The petitioner's date of birth
entered in his high-school mark-sheet,
where he failed the examination, is also not
a relevant document, as also his Class VIII
mark-sheet, under the said Rule. All that is
relevant under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974
for an employee, who is not a matriculate
or the holder of an equivalent certificate for
the determination of his date of birth is the
date of birth or age recorded in his service
book at the time of his entry into service, to
employ the expression in the Rule. The
date of birth recorded in such government
servant's service book at the time of entry
into service by mandate of Rule 2 has to be
deemed as his correct date of birth for all
purposes, which include superannuation.
The
employment
of
the
expression
"deemed" in the context of Rule 2 is of
profound
relevance.
Non-matriculate
employees
in
the
lower
grades
of
government servants, wherever eligible,
may not have very accurate record about
their date of birth or even age. It is for the
purpose of curtailing controversy related to
their age, assuming that there would be no
dependable testimonial about it, the statute
raises a fiction that the date of birth or age
recorded in the service book at the time of
entry into service shall be deemed to be
correct for all purposes under Rule 2,
which includes superannuation. No other
evidence about such a non-matriculate
employee's date of birth is, therefore, to be
let in or examined at all. Reference in this
regard may be made to the decision of this
Court in Smt. Kalyani Devi v. State of
U.P. and others2. Since there is no cavil
about the issue that the petitioner's date of
birth, that was originally recorded, was
20.02.1967, and later on changed on the
basis of the notarial affidavit dated
09.01.2012 furnished by the petitioner, the
change is clearly in the teeth of Rule 2 of
the Rules 1974. Moreover, by virtue of
Rule 3, the Rules of 1974 have overriding
effect over all other rules.

18. The result would be that the
petitioner's date of birth originally recorded
in his service book, to wit, 20.02.1967, has
to be regarded as his correct and immutable
date of birth. The conclusion, to the
contrary, reached by the respondents and
the
orders
impugned
are,
therefore,
manifestly illegal.

19. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned orders dated
13.05.2024 and 03.07.2024, both passed by
the Works Manager, Irrigation Workshop
Division, Meerut are hereby quashed. A
mandamus is issued to the Superintending
Engineer, Irrigation Workshop Circle,
Lucknow, the Works Manager, Irrigation
Workshop Division,
Meerut
and
the
Assistant Engineer-II, Irrigation Workshop
Division, Meerut to ensure, amongst
themselves, immediate reinstatement of the
petitioner in service, together with all
consequential benefits of salary, increment
and seniority. The petitioner would be
entitled to the arrears of salary for the
period that he remained out of employment.
It goes without saying that the petitioner
would be entitled to continue in service
until he attains the age of superannuation
according to his originally recorded date of
birth
in
the
service
book,
to
wit,
20.02.1967.
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. There shall be no order as to costs.

21. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Superintending
Engineer,
Irrigation
Workshop Circle, Lucknow through the
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Lucknow,
and
the
Works
Manager,
Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut and
the
Assistant
Engineer-II,
Irrigation
Workshop Division, Meerut, both through
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Meerut.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 668
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - A No. 12905 of 2024

Dan Bahadur Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Managing Director And Ceo Bank of
Baroda Corporate Center Mumbai & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Salik Ram Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Prashant Kumar Srivastava

(A) Service Law - Pension - Bank of
Baroda
(Employees')
Pension
Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 41 -
Commutation - The Central Civil Services
(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 -
Rule 10 A - Restoration of commuted
pension
-
Doctrine
of
Estoppel
-
Wednesbury Unreasonableness - Matters
related to commutation of pension are
complex affairs involving vexed issues
traversing
diverse
fields,
requiring
specialized expertise - In such matters,
the Court would venture only in cases of
manifest and apparent arbitrariness.
(Para -13)

Petitioner (retired employee of Bank of
Baroda) challenged - validity of a note
appended to Regulation 41 of the Bank of
Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulations,
1995 - which mandates a 15-year period for
the restoration of commuted pension -
petitioner argued - commuted amount had
already been set off in 9.81 years, making
the remaining deductions unjust enrichment.
(Para - 2,3,4)

HELD: - Petitioner voluntarily accepted the
commutation scheme in 2013 and is now
estopped
from
challenging
it.
15-year
restoration
rule
is
neither
arbitrary
nor
unreasonable and has been upheld by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause case.
Provision
does
not
amount
to
unjust
enrichment, and no interference is warranted.
(Para -13,19)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hari N. Saste & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors., C.A.T.,
Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in O.A. No. 860 of 2024

2. Shila Devi & ors. Vs St. of Punj. & ors.,
C.W.P. No. 9426 of 2023 (O&M)

3. "Common Cause" a registered society & ors.
Vs U.O.I., (1987) 1 SCC 142

4. Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd. Vs
Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 K.B. 223

5. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs Collector of
Customs, AIR 1962 SC 1893

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Salik Ram Yadav, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Prashant Kumar Srivastava for the opposite
parties.