# Shadi Lal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 118
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-14
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1685 of 2011
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shadi-lal-v-state-of-u-p-49902
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Challenge to the date of
birth at the time of retirement - It is
settled law that after attaining the age of
retirement or at the fag end of the service,
an employee cannot dispute the entry in
the service book regarding his date of
birth. (Para 7)

The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge
the date of birth recorded in his service book
after his retirement. (Para 6, 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidly stated or are suppressed or are
distorted, the very functioning of the writ
courts would become impossible.?

The aforesaid law that coming to
Court with clean hands has been repeatedly
reiterated the law that by this Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in a large number of
cases. Some ofwhich may be noted, they are:
Hari Narain v. Badri Das - AIR 1963 SC
1558, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. - (1983)
4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy
(Dead) by LRs. v. Government of Karnatka -
JT 1991 (3) SC 12 : (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. - JT 1993 (6) SC
331 : (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry
v. Government of A.P. - JT 2007 (4) SC 186
: (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited
v. SBI - JT 2007 (10) SC 218 : (2007) 8 SCC
449, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India-
JT 2008 (1) SC 308 : (2008) 2 SCC 326,
K.D. Sharma v. SAIL - JT 2008 (8) SC 57:
(2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v.
Bhagwandas S. Patel - JT 2009 (2) SC 71 :
(2009) 3 SCC 141, Dalip Singh v. State of
U.P. - JT 2009 (15) SC 201: (2010) 2 SCC
114.

7. On due consideration to the
submissions advanced, perusal of the
record, so also the fact that the applicant
while filing the writ petition has suppressed
the material facts that she is the daughterin-law of the second wife of the deceased
employee, who died in harness, so also the
fact that the deceased entered into the
second marriage while his first wife was
surviving and does not come in the
definition of 'family' as also considering the
aforementioned judgements, the petition is
liable to dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the petition being
devoid of merit, is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 118
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 1685 of 2011

Shadi Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prem Shankar Trivedi, Alpana Yadav,
Shikha Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Challenge to the date of
birth at the time of retirement - It is
settled law that after attaining the age of
retirement or at the fag end of the service,
an employee cannot dispute the entry in
the service book regarding his date of
birth. (Para 7)

The petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge
the date of birth recorded in his service book
after his retirement. (Para 6, 8)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs S.M. Jadhav & anr.,
(2001) 4 SCC 52 (Para 6)

2. Jagir Singh Vs St.of Punjab & ors., CWP No.
21166 of 2014 (Para 6)

3. Prabhu Lal Son of Shri Assistant......Vs District
Basic Education......, order dated 05.12.2003
(Para 6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)
3 All. Shadi Lal Vs. State of U.P.
119

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner
as well as learned Standing Counsel for
opposite parties No.1 to 4.

2. The petitioner by way of filing
instant writ petition has prayed for
following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties directing
them to allow the petitioner to continue in
service and pay him salary regularly til the
date of his actual retirement i.e. 30.6.2018
in the interest of justice.

(ii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
15.2.2011 passed by opposite party no.4
against
the
petitioner,
contained
as
annexure no.6 to the writ petition.

(iii) issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite party no.2
directing him to decide the representation
of the petitioner dated 15.3.2011 contained
as annexure no.9 to this writ petition.

(iv) issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deems fit and proper in the circumstances
of the case may be passed in favour of the
petitioners in the interest of justice.

(v) allow the writ petition with
costs."

3. During the course of the pendency
of the writ petition, petitioner has passed
away and petitioner Nos.1/1 to 1/5 has been
substituted.

4. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner was initially appointed on daily
wage basis on 26.06.1986 on the post of
Beldar Class IV category. The services of
the petitioner were transferred in the Work
Charge Establishment by the competent
authority vide order dated 10.07.2001 w.e.f.
15.08.1999. Vide office memo dated
01.05.2010, a notice was received by the
petitioner wherein it has been stated that he
is going to be retired on 30.06.2010 after
completing
60
years
of
age
of
superannuation. It is contended by the
petitioner that he is uneducated employee,
he was born on 29.02.1958 which is
mentioned in the family register. After
receiving the notice dated 01.05.2010,
petitioner represented the respondent No.4.
The representations are contained in
Annexure Nos.4 and 5 thereafter, by way of
filing
two
RTIs,
the
petitioner
got
information from the office of C.M.O.,
Firozabad. According to which, the medical
certificate is only of fitness certificate and
not certificate regarding the age. The
photocopy of the letter dated 11.03.2011
issued by the C.M.O., Firozabad is also on
record. Again the petitioner represented the
authority vide Annexure Nos.8 and 9. It is
thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that he has been wrongly retired from the
service on 30.06.2010 on the basis of the
certificate of age issued by the C.M.O.,
Firozabad whereas according to the family
register he was born in the year 1958
therefore, he should have been retired from
service in the year 2018.

5. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that medical test of
the petitioner was conducted by the Chief
Medical Superintendent in which his age
was
determined
as
48
years
and
accordingly,
his
date
of
birth
was
determined as 27.06.1950 and the same
was entered in his service record. This was
acknowledged
and
accepted
by
the
petitioner by making his signature on the
service book. Thus, on the basis of the date
of birth recorded in the service book of the
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner,
the
order/notice
dated
01.05.2010 was passed by the respondent
No.4 and consequently, the petitioner was
superannuated
on
30.06.2010
after
attaining the age of superannuation which
is totally in accordance with law.

6.
On due
consideration
to
the
submissions advanced and perusal of the
record, it is not in dispute that the date of
birth recorded in the service book is
27.06.1950, a notice of retirement was issued
prior to his retirement on 01.05.2010 and the
petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010
after attaining the age of superannuation. The
petitioner is raising dispute regarding the
incorrect date of birth mentioned in the
service book, however, law in this regard has
been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
following judgments:-

(i) Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. S.M.
Jadhav & Anr. reported in [(2001) 4 SCC
52]

(ii) Jagir Singh vs. State of Punjab
& Ors. [CWP No.21166 of 2014]

(iii) Prabhu Lal Son of Shri
Assistant.......vs.
District
Basic
Education.......[order dated 05.12.2003].

7. A perusal of aforesaid judgments
depicts that it is settled law that after attaining
the age of retirement or at the fag end of the
service, an employee cannot dispute the entry
in the service book regarding his date of birth.

8. In view of settled law and in the
peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to challenge the date of
birth recorded in his service book after his
retirement.

9. In view of above, the petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 120
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 1766 of 2023

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Pramod Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Praveen Kumar Tewari, Prateek Tewari,
Shikhar Anand

A. Service Law - Promotion - Censure
entry - In a situation where a censure is
being
awarded
to
an
employee
on
10.04.2017 in respect of period of 200809 and in the annual entry for the year
2017-18 he is being rated as a very good
official/officer,
denying
the
claim
of
promotion on the ground of the censure
entry dated 10.04.2017 pertaining to the
period 2008-09 is, thus, not only illegal
being
contrary
to
what
has
been
prescribed in Para 2(स) of the GO dated
30.06.1993 but is also arbitrary. (Para 20)

As per Para 2(स) of the GO dated
30.06.1993, the St. Government has provided
that in case any censure entry is available
during the period for which the relevant service
record of an employee is under consideration
and no other adverse entry or punishment is
awarded to such an employee within five years
from the date in respect of which the censure
entry is available, such censure entry shall not
be considered for the purposes of evaluating
satisfactory service of the employee concerned,