# Yagya Narayan Sen v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 488
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 20013 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yagya-narayan-sen-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53575
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Ashok Kumar Yadav, C.S.C., Lokesh Kumar
Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner's salary was withheld on the ground
that an investigation indicated he had fraudulently
recorded his date of birth as 01.08.1970, whereas a
school record for one Yagya Narayan showed the
date of birth as 02.11.1961.The main issue for
consideration before the court "Whether the date of
birth of the petitioner once entered into service at the
time of entry into service could be changed by
investigating into his date of birth on a third party
complaint subsequently, more specially when such an
employee is not high school pass out".
Headnotes
Service law- Determination of Date of Birth
Rules, 1974-Date of birth-Correction or
changed-Admissibility-Date of birth of an
employee who has not passed the High School
Certificate cannot be changed once originally
recorded at the time of entry in service-The
Rules,1974 are fully applicable-The Court
quashed the order passed by the Executive
engineer, Baghla Kanal Project, Prayagraj
which
withheld
the
payment
of
the
petitioner's salary-Petition allowed.

Held
An order to withhold the salary of an employee,
including one passed during an enquiry or
investigation into their DoB, carries adverse civil
consequences-Such an order is not sustainable
without providing the petitioner notice or an
opportunity of hearing-The petitioner's recorded date
of birth of 01.08.1970 in the service book shall be
continued and used as the basis for his service-Shall
be entitled to the entire salary which has remained
withheld and also current salary until he attains the
age of superannuation-The order dated 27.11.2019
passed by the Executive Engineer,Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj, which withheld the payment of the
petitioner's salary and the order dated 14.112019
passed by the Superintending Engineer, which
directed for a fresh investigaiton and enquiry into the
petitioner's date of birth are quashed.(Para 12 to 15)
(E-6)

List of Acts
Determination of Date of Birth Rules,1974

List of Keywords
Daily wager; Executive Engineer, Internal
Inhouse enquiry; Kanhar Kanal Project Division,
Baghla
Kanal
Project;
Service
book;
Superannuation; Permanent employee.

Case Arising From
Service Law- WRIT-A No. - 20013 of 2019
From

the
Judgment
and
order
dated
17.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabd.

Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & 3
Ors

Appearances for Parties
Advs.
for
Petitioner:
7 All. Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
489
Prabhakar Awasthi
Advs. for Respondent: Ashok Kumar Yadav,
C.S.C., Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi

## Text

488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any of them in the CBD Project or other
project for the purpose of quantification of
their pension, to which they were entitled
upon retirement.

36. In considering all these facts,
issues and circumstances, besides the law,
which bears on the point, we do not find it
to be a fit case for the grant of relief in the
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution.

37. In the result, this writ petition fails
and stands dismissed.

38. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 488
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 20013 of 2019

Yagya Narayan Sen ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Prabahkar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashok Kumar Yadav, C.S.C., Lokesh Kumar
Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner's salary was withheld on the ground
that an investigation indicated he had fraudulently
recorded his date of birth as 01.08.1970, whereas a
school record for one Yagya Narayan showed the
date of birth as 02.11.1961.The main issue for
consideration before the court "Whether the date of
birth of the petitioner once entered into service at the
time of entry into service could be changed by
investigating into his date of birth on a third party
complaint subsequently, more specially when such an
employee is not high school pass out".
Headnotes
Service law- Determination of Date of Birth
Rules, 1974-Date of birth-Correction or
changed-Admissibility-Date of birth of an
employee who has not passed the High School
Certificate cannot be changed once originally
recorded at the time of entry in service-The
Rules,1974 are fully applicable-The Court
quashed the order passed by the Executive
engineer, Baghla Kanal Project, Prayagraj
which
withheld
the
payment
of
the
petitioner's salary-Petition allowed.

Held
An order to withhold the salary of an employee,
including one passed during an enquiry or
investigation into their DoB, carries adverse civil
consequences-Such an order is not sustainable
without providing the petitioner notice or an
opportunity of hearing-The petitioner's recorded date
of birth of 01.08.1970 in the service book shall be
continued and used as the basis for his service-Shall
be entitled to the entire salary which has remained
withheld and also current salary until he attains the
age of superannuation-The order dated 27.11.2019
passed by the Executive Engineer,Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj, which withheld the payment of the
petitioner's salary and the order dated 14.112019
passed by the Superintending Engineer, which
directed for a fresh investigaiton and enquiry into the
petitioner's date of birth are quashed.(Para 12 to 15)
(E-6)

List of Acts
Determination of Date of Birth Rules,1974

List of Keywords
Daily wager; Executive Engineer, Internal
Inhouse enquiry; Kanhar Kanal Project Division,
Baghla
Kanal
Project;
Service
book;
Superannuation; Permanent employee.

Case Arising From
Service Law- WRIT-A No. - 20013 of 2019
From

the
Judgment
and
order
dated
17.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabd.

Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & 3
Ors

Appearances for Parties
Advs.
for
Petitioner:
7 All. Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
489
Prabhakar Awasthi
Advs. for Respondent: Ashok Kumar Yadav,
C.S.C., Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.
Akansha Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondents
and
Sri
Lokesh
Kumar
Dwivedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
petitioner has prayed for quashing the order
dated 27.11.2019 whereby his salary has
been withheld on the ground that upon
enquiry/ investigation being conducted into
original school record from the institution it
transpired
that
petitioner
had
got
fraudulently recorded his date of birth
while entering service as 01.08.1970
whereas the date of birth recorded in the
records of the school in front of the name
of one Yagya Narayan was shown to be
02.11.1961.

3. From the pleadings brought on
record and the documents by the respective
parties it transpires that petitioner was
initially engaged as daily wager on
01.11.1983 but upon detecting that he was
underage
being
a
minor,
he
was
discontinued
after
two
months
and
thereafter came to be re-engaged on a daily
wages basis only in the year 1989 and
having continued working for more than
240 days and he being enlisted in the
muster role issued in the year 1998 at serial
no.22 provided by Executive Engineer,
Baadh Sector, Construction Division Ist,
Mirzapur,
he
was
given
permanent
appointment on the post of Chowkidaar in
the
work
charge
establishment
on
10.05.1998. He was made to continue until
2001 when finally he was shifted to regular
establishment
and
given
joining
on
18.01.2001.
He
was
subsequently
transferred to the office of Executive
Engineer, Baghla Kanal Division on the
post of Mate.

4. It transpires from the records that a
third party complaint was made by a
villager in the office of Executive Engineer
stating therein that petitioner's date of birth
was 02.11.1961. It is on the basis of this
complaint that an internal inhouse enquiry
was set into motion and it was found that in
the service records petitioner's name was
recorded as Yagya Narayan Sen with date
of birth as 01.08.1970. On the basis of the
medical examination report submitted by
Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur his date of
birth was so recorded.

5. A letter was written by the office
where the petitioner was posted on
10.01.2019
directing
the
Executive
Engineer,Baadh
Sector,
Construction
Division, Mirzapur to submit its report and
since the said division subsequently came
to be merged with the Kanhar Kanal
Project Division, Sonbhadra a letter was
written on 12.02.2019 and 16.05.2019 from
Prayagraj to the said division to furnish
report. As a consequence thereof, the
Executive Engineer, Kanhar Division 4th,
Duddhi submitted a report on 25.06.2019
that there was no record available in the
name of Yagya Narayan and when again a
letter was written to investigate into the
cash section of the office to find out the
payment vouchers, it was in response to
this, that information was given that again
entire records were investigated but no
document could be made available in the
name of Yagya Narayan Sen. It is after this
that the Executive Engineer, Baghla Kanal
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Project, Allahabad submitted report on
10.09.2019 that the school records of
Bajrang Bali Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya,
Baghla,
Shankargarh,
the
verification
showed that Yagya Narayan Sens' date of
birth was 01.08.1970 and accordingly, the
Superintendent Engineer submitted report
that petitioner's date of birth can be taken to
be 01.08.1970. However, the matter did not
end here and some further investigation an
enquiry was undertaken in view of the
letter
written
by
the
Superintending
Engineer on 14.11.2019. This letter was
written to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation,
U.P., Lucknow and and as a sequal thereto
an order was passed on 27.11.2019
restraining payment of salary to the
petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised two points: firstly, due to mere
pendency of any enquiry or investigation,
salary of an employee could not have been
witheld and that too without putting him to
notice when such an order is having
adverse civil consequences; and secondly,
the Determination of Date of Birth Rules,
1974 are applicable to the establishment in
question which does not permit any change
in the date of birth, may be on a mere
complaint, once it has been entered at the
time of entry into service.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the
contrary submits that the service book
sufficiently demonstrates that the word
'Sen' has been further added after the name
'Yagya Narayan' inasmuch as the signatures
of Yagya Narayan as 'Yagya Narayan Sen'
also differs in flow of writing especially
when subsequently title given therein as
'Sen'. However, learned Standing Counsel
would fairly admit that the entire service
book carries the name as 'Yagya Narayan
Sen' and the original date of birth recorded
at the time of entry into service is
01.08.1970.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the records,
the point of of law that emerges for
consideration before the Court is, whether
the date of birth of the petitioner once
entered into service record at the time of
entry into service could be changed by
investigating into his date of birth on a
third party complaint subsequently, more
especially when such an employee is not
high school pass out.

9. It is not disputed to the parties that
petitioner
came
to
be
employed
permanently
in
the
work
charge
establishment only in the year 2001
naturally, therefore, the service book was
prepared for the first time in 2001 and even
if some may doubt the title of 'Sen' to be
not originally written at the time of
preparation of service book but the entry of
date of birth as 1970 has not been doubted.
This entry of date of birth at the time of
preparation of service book shall stand
governed under the 1974 Rules because the
petitioner would be taken to have enrolled
as
a
permanent
employee
of
the
establishment only in the year 2001. So
entry in service is 2001 and date of birth
entered at that time was 01.08.1970.

10. I have perused the original service
book and I do not find any interpolation
therein.

11. It is also admitted to the
respondents that the petitioner is not high
school passed, nor ever furnished any
certificate of this effect, nor ever applied
for change of his date of birth recorded
originally in service book. It is also
admitted to the respondents that the
7 All. Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
491
petitioner entered in service as daily wager
in 1989 and when finally he was given
permanent appointment in 2001, he was
major. So at the time of entry as a regular
member of service, petitioner was major
and the period counted for the purposes of
regularisation from 1989 would also
disclose that he was major in 1989. Thus
the argument that the petitioner was minor
at the time of entry into service on the basis
of his date of birth in 1970 deserves to be
rejected. In the background of aforesaid
facts therefore, the 1974 Rules are fully
applicable. Relevant Rules of 1974 Rules
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 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.

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
document at the time of employment the
Court should not change that date of birth."

12. From a 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.

14. In view of the above, therefore,
respondents
were
not
justified
in
conducting any investigation or enquiry
into the date of birth of the petitioner
originally recorded in the service book as
01.08.1970.

It
is
also
admitted
to
the
respondents that no notice or opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner
before
passing
the
order
impugned
witholding payment of salary. The counter
affidavit only demonstrates that during an
in-house enquiry conducted petitioner was
afforded opportunity. I may further refer it
to the enquiry report of the Superintending
Engineer dated 03.11.2017 which in its
concluding part records that petitioner's
date of birth should be considered as
01.08.1970 on the basis of records and the
certificate issued by the Chief Medical
Officer. I therefore, fail to understand as to
why upon a sheer third party complaint
made by a villager who may be a
busybody, the respondents embarked upon
a fresh enquiry under the order dated
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14.10.2019
passed
by
Superintendent
Engineer.

14. Thus, the order passed by the
Superintendent Engineer dated 14.11.2019 is
also not sustainable in view of the aforesaid
rules. I take judicial notice of the order dated
14.11.2019 also because it has laid the
foundation for the order impugned dated
27.11.2019 and hence while the order dated
27.11.2019 deserves to be quashed the order
dated 14.11.2019 equally deserves to be
quashed.

15. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The order impugned dated 27.11.2019 passed
by the Executive Engineer, Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj witholding payment of salary
of the petitioner brought as Annexure-8 to the
writ petition and order passed by the
Superintending Engineer dated 14.11.2019
directing for fresh investigation and enquiry are
hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be
continued in service on the basis of his date of
birth recorded as 01.08.1970 in the service book
and shall be entitled to entire salary which has
remained witheld and also the current salary
until he attains the age of superannuation.

16. Service book is returned to the
learned Standing Counsel.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 21425 of 2019

Deepak Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Seemant Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner's salary was withheld on the
ground that an investigation indicated he had
fraudulently recorded his date of birth as
01.08.1970, whereas a school record for one
Yagya Narayan showed the date of birth as
02.11.1961.The main issue for consideration
before the court "Whether the date of birth of
the petitioner once entered into service at the
time of entry into service could be changed by
investigating into his date of birth on a third
party complaint subsequently, more specially
when such an employee is not high school pass
out".

Headnotes
Service law- Determination of Date of
Birth Rules, 1974-Date of birth-Correction
or changed-Admissibility-Date of birth of
an employee who has not passed the High
School Certificate cannot be changed once
originally recorded at the time of entry in
service-The
Rules,1974
are
fully
applicable-The Court quashed the order
passed by the Executive engineer, Baghla
Kanal Project, Prayagraj which withheld
the payment of the petitioner's salaryPetition allowed.

Held
An order to withhold the salary of an employee,
including one passed during an enquiry or
investigation into their DoB, carries adverse civil
consequences-Such an order is not sustainable
without providing the petitioner notice or an
opportunity of hearing-The petitioner's recorded
date of birth of 01.08.1970 in the service book
shall be continued and used as the basis for his
service-Shall be entitled to the entire salary
which has remained withheld and also current
salary
until
he
attains
the
age
of
superannuation-The order dated 27.11.2019
passed by the Executive Engineer,Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj, which withheld the payment
of the petitioner's salary and the order dated
14.112019 passed by the Superintending
Engineer,
which
directed
for
a
fresh
investigaiton and enquiry into the petitioner's
date of birth are quashed.(Para 12 to 15) (E-6)