# Surendra Giri v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 756
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6045 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-giri-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53979
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Rishabh Tripathi

Issue for consideration
 Which date of birth shall be deemed to be
correct, where a government servant has not
passed High School or equivalent exam?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment to Services (Determination of
Date of Birth) Rules, 1974: Rules 2 & 3 -
Where a government servant has not
passed High School or equivalent exam,
his DOB recorded in his service book shall
be deemed to be his correct DOB. The
DOB, as recorded in the service book,
would be conclusive in all respects, more
particularly when there is no interpolation
made in the service book as far as the
DOB is concerned. (Para 18, 20, 21)

The petitioner, who 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 DOB 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 DOB 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 DOB of 01.12.1965 till
31.12.2025. (Para 16)

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

There is no dispute that the DOB 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 DOB 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
DOB of the petitioner as 15.01.1964,
which
incidentally
are
all
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 DOB
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 Rules,
1974, where a government servant has
not passed High School or equivalent
exam, his DOB recorded in his service
book shall be deemed to be his correct
DOB. (Para 21, 30)

B. 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. (Para 34)
9 All. Surendra Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757
Respondents are commanded to continue the
petitioner in service on the basis of his DOB 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 entitled for
arrears of pay for the period (he was kept out of
service) of service and other consequential
benefit till his reinstatement in pursuance to this
order. (Para 33)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employed at any place from the date of
dismissal till his reinstatement.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 756
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ A No. 6045 of 2024

Surendra Giri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Rishabh Tripathi

Issue for consideration
 Which date of birth shall be deemed to be
correct, where a government servant has not
passed High School or equivalent exam?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment to Services (Determination of
Date of Birth) Rules, 1974: Rules 2 & 3 -
Where a government servant has not
passed High School or equivalent exam,
his DOB recorded in his service book shall
be deemed to be his correct DOB. The
DOB, as recorded in the service book,
would be conclusive in all respects, more
particularly when there is no interpolation
made in the service book as far as the
DOB is concerned. (Para 18, 20, 21)

The petitioner, who 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 DOB 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 DOB 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 DOB of 01.12.1965 till
31.12.2025. (Para 16)

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

There is no dispute that the DOB 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 DOB 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
DOB of the petitioner as 15.01.1964,
which
incidentally
are
all
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 DOB
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 Rules,
1974, where a government servant has
not passed High School or equivalent
exam, his DOB recorded in his service
book shall be deemed to be his correct
DOB. (Para 21, 30)

B. 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. (Para 34)
9 All. Surendra Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757
Respondents are commanded to continue the
petitioner in service on the basis of his DOB 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 entitled for
arrears of pay for the period (he was kept out of
service) of service and other consequential
benefit till his reinstatement in pursuance to this
order. (Para 33)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Suresh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2024 AHC 108904 (Para 10)

2. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and another
Vs. Satya Ram and another, 2025 INSC 339
(Para 14)

3. The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore
Mines Vs. The Vice President, United Mines
Mazdoor Union and others, 2024 INSC 264 (Para
14)

4. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Vs.
Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 (Para
26)

5. Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991 AIR
2010 (Para 34)

List of Acts
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974.

List of Keywords
Service, salary, daily wager, service book.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Alok Singh
For Respondent: C.S.C., Rishabh Tripathi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1
and Sri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents No.2 to 6.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed praying for the following main
reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order, or
direction in the nature of Certiorari,
thereby quashing the impugned retirement
order dated 05.04.2024 passed by opposite
party no.4, contained as Annexure no 1 to
the writ petition.

ii) Issue a writ, order, or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to allow
the petitioner to work on the post of Peon
as per date of birth recorded in the service
book i.e 01.12.1965 and pay him salary
each and every month.

iii) Issue a writ, order, or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to pay
arrears of salary for the month of February
and March 2024, forthwith."

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
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
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 "112-1965 (एक मदसम्बर 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 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 annexureCA-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
9 All. Surendra Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
759
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 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 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,
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 made 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.

.................

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 when the Government
servant had indicated a particular date of
birth in his application form or any other
9 All. Surendra Giri Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
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 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-SCA3, 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 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
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 762
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 9332 of 2023

Shivam Sonkar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jai Shankar Pandey, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, R.M. Saggi, Akhilesh
Kumar Ojha