# Prem Singh v. Engineer-In-Chief, P.W.D., Lucknow and another

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 165
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1997-05-12
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-singh-v-engineer-in-chief-p-w-d-lucknow-and-another-39649
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3All] Prem Singh V. Engineer-In-Chief, P.W.D., Lucknow and another 165

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'

%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

3UHP 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
(QJLQHHU ,Q&KLHI 3:' /XFNQRZ
2WKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DMHVK ' .KDUH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

,QWHUSRODWLRQ LQ VHUYLFH UHFRUG UHVXOWHG
SUHPDWXUH UHWLUHPHQW GLUHFWLRQ LVVXHG
WR UHOHDVH WKH SRVW UHWLUHO EHQHILW DORQJ
ZLWK

LQWHUHVW
ZLWK
FRVW
RI
5V IURP SHUVRQDO EHQHILW RI WKH
RIILFHU KHOG UHVSRQVLEOH ± ZLWKLQ RQH
PRQWK
+HOG 3DUD
7KH RIILFHU FRQFHUQHG UHVSRQVLEOH IRU
PDLQWHQDQFH
RI
UHFRUG
DQG
IRU
LQWHUSRODWLRQ WKH VHUYLFH UHFRUG VKRXOG
EH EURXJKW WR ERRN ,W LV IXUWKHU GLUHFWHG
WKDW
WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV
VKDOO
HQVXUH
UHOHDVH
RI
SHWLWLRQHU¶V
SRVW
UHWLUDO
EHQHILWV
7KH UHVSRQGHQWV DUH GLUHFWHG
WR
SD\

LQWHUHVW
SHU
DQQXP
RQ
DPRXQW GXH IRU GHOD\HG SD\PHQW IRU QR
IDXOW RI WKH HPSOR\HH RQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU
DV KHOG LQ WKH UHFHQW MXGJHPHQW RI WKH
$SH[ &RXUW LQ $OODKDEDG &LYLO
-RXUQDO $OVR UHIHUHQFH EH PDGH WR
WKH FDVHV UHSRUWHG LQ 9RO ,,,
$:& '% 83/& '%
:ULW SHWLWLRQ LV DOORZHG ZLWK FRVWV ZKLFK
, TXDQWLI\ DW 5V WR EH SDLG
ZLWKLQ
RQH
PRQWK
RI
UHFHLSW
RI
MXGJHPHQW DQG WR EH UHFRYHUHG IURP WKH
HUULQJ RIILFLDO
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 $ & - 9RO ,,,
,,, $:& '%
 83/&
By the Court

1. This writ petition under article
226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed praying for a writ of certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
23.2.1995
(Annexure-6
to
the
writ
petition) and for writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents not to
interfere in petitioner's functioning as
work-agent till the petitioner attains the
age of superanuation and to pay him
regular salary month by month and other
allowances also.

2. This writ petition was filed by the
petitioner in the year 1995. The
respondents were granted time to file a
counter affidavit and the petitioner to file
rejoinder affidavit. No counter affidavit
has been filed. The writ petition was
dismissed on 13.7.1995. Petitioner filed a
restoration application which was allowed
by the court on 12.5.1997, i.e. after about
twenty two month i.e. more than one and
half year.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
stated that petitioner was not allowed to
work and paid salary after February,1995.

4. In brief the undisputed facts of the
case are that the petitioner was appointed
as work agent in the Department of PWD,
Government of U.P. in the year 1985.
Subsequently he was confirmed vide
order dated 23.3.1969 (Annexure-2 to the
writ petition), which indicates that he was
appointed on 1.3.1968 as work agent on
temporary basis.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

166
5. The petitioner states that due to
some personal grudge of the authorities he
is being dealt with in an arbitrary manner.

6. The learned Standing counsel has
pointed out that a counter affidavit has
been filed in the registry. It is not on
record. Sri R.D. Khare, learned counsel
for the petitioner placed a supplementary
affidavit before this court which was
received way back by the learned standing
counsel. The respondent in para -4 of
their counter alleged interpolation in the
date of birth of petitioner in service
record. It is to be disbelieved. The date of
birth of petitioner purports to have been
recorded by over writing in service record
as 15.7.39 which should have been
normally prepared when petitioner joined
the services. According to the respondent
no cutting or over writing has been made
in the date birth of the petitioner . It is
against record. However, the date of birth
(15.7.39) apparently been made on the
basis of the certificate dated 15.7.1976
given by the Superintendent of District
Hospital, Muzaffarnagar; Photostat copy
of which is annexed part of Annexure-3A to the counter affidavit. It mentions
petitioner's age as 38 years in the year
1976.

7. It is, therefore, clear that the date
of birth of the petitioner initially entered
in service record was 15.7.39 and not
15.7.36 as claimed by the opposite party
over writing and interpolation are to the
effect that figure '9' is made to appears
'6' which is evident to naked eyes.
Petitioner's
age
thereafter
will
be
15.7.1939 and thus he attained age of
superannuating
in
July,
1999,
on
completing 60 years of age.

8.

Petitioner
filed
several
representations
to
the
concerned
Executive Engineer for verification of his
date of birth in his service record. Copy
of the representations are annexed as
Annexures No. III, III-A,III-B, III-C and
III-D to this writ petition. Employees
Union also submitted representation to the
Executive Engineer Division-I PWD,
Muzaffarnagar on 6.9.1991 and raised the
issue of manipulation in the service record
of the petitioner (Annexure-IV to the writ
petition).

9. It is clear that the allegations
made against the petitioner are in correct.
Petitioner claimed for promotion tot he
post of work supervisor, but he was
denied promotion, and he was forced to
file claim Petition No.289/F/IV/1988
before the Public Tribunal, Lucknow,
which was allowed on 23.8.1995. The
Executive Engineer, however, held that
the petitioner be promoted as work
supervisor but denied the relief holding
that he has superanuated w.e.f. 31.7.1994.

10. It is apparent that the petitioner
has been victimised twice at the hands of
the respondent's officials/employees in
the concerned office with an ulterior
motive and extraneous consideration to
deny promotion to the petitioner.

11. Conduct of the department/
respondents in tempering with the service
record of the petitioner can not be
overlooked.

12. It is a fit case where higher
authorities should initiated a inquiry to fix
the
responsibility
for
the
above
interpolation (over-writing ) or forgery in
the service record of the petitioner and
punish the erring responsible persons.
3All] Baldev Singh V. Tehsildar Bilaspur, Rampur and others 167

 The officer concerned responsible
for maintenance of record and for
interpolation the service record should be
brought to book. It is further directed that
the respondents shall ensure release of
petitioner's post retrial benefits. The
respondents are directed to 18% interest
per annum on amount due for delayed
payment for no fault of the employees on
the petitioner held in the recent judgement
of the Apex Court in 2000 (1) Allahabad
Civil Journal 824. Also reference be
made tot he cases reported in 1996 (Vol.
37) III AWC 1525 (DB), 1982 UPLC
1097 (DB).

13. Writ petition is allowed with
costs which I quantity at Rs.25000/- to be
paid within one month of receipt of
judgement and to be recovered from the
erring official.

25
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1& -
7+( +21
%/( 6+<$0$/ .80$5 6(1& -
7+( +21
%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21
%/( *3 0$7+85 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

%DOGHY 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7HKVLOGDU %LODVSXU 5DPSXU DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 53 6LQJK
6KUL 0XUOLGKDU
6KUL .3 8SDGK\D\D
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 53 *RHO
$GYRFDWH *HQHUDO

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
$ -DW 6LNK EHLQJ DOVR D -DW LV IXOO\
FRYHUHG E\ HQWU\ RI 6FKHGXOH , RI
 DQG LV D PHPEHU RI EDFNZDUG FODVV
DV LV GHILQHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ %% RI 83
3DQFK\DW 5DM $FW
+HOG 3DUD

-DW
6LNK
EHLQJ
DOVR
D

-DW
LV
IXOO\
FRYHUHG E\ HQWU\ RI 6FKHGXOH , RI
 $FW DQG LV D PHPEHU RI EDFNZDUG
FODVV
7KH
SHWLWLRQHU
LV
WKHUHIRUH
HQWLWOHG WR EH LVVXHG D FHUWLILFDWH WKDW KH
EHORQJV
WR
D
EDFNZDUG
FODVV
DQG
LV
HOLJLEOH
WR
FRQWHVW
IRU
WKH
RIILFH
RI
$GK\DNVKD
=LOD
3DQFKD\DW
5DPSXU
ZKLFK KDV EHHQ UHVHUYHG IRU D SHUVRQ
EHORQJLQJ WR WKH VDLG FRPPXQLW\

By the Court

1. The petitioner a 'Jat Sikh' was
elected as s member of Zila Panchyat,
Rampur, in the election held for various
Panchyats in the State in June 2000 in
accordance with section 18(1)(b) of U.P.
Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats
Adhinlyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as the Zila Panchyat Adhiniyam). The
office of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchyat
Rampur has been reserved for a person
belonging
to
backward
class
in
accordance with section 19-A of the
Adhiniyam.. The petitioner wanted to
contest the election for the office of
Adhyaksha and for that purpose he moved
an application of July 10,2000 before the
Tehsildar of his area for being issued a
certificate that he belongs to a backward
class. The Tehsildar directed an enquiry
and after receiving a report passed an
order on July 11, 2000 holding that the
petitioner did not belong to backward
class. The persent writ petition has been
filed praying that the order of the
Tehsildar be quashed and a writ of
mandamus be issued to the respondents