DOB in a Govt. Servant’s Service Book Final for Retirement

Case Details: Jagbeer Singh vs. State of U.P. - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 893 (HC-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

J.J. Munir, J.
Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed as an unskilled labourer in the Irrigation Workshop Division, Meerut, in April 1983. He was issued a retirement notice stating that he would retire upon reaching 60 years of age.

The petitioner represented that his date of birth was 20.02.1967, relying on a Class VIII school-leaving certificate, a high-school marksheet, and an internal certificate issued by Mukhya Samaypal reflecting a date of birth of 20.02.1967, a date of appointment in April 1983, and a projected retirement in March 2025.

He sought restoration of his service records to reflect 20.02.1967 instead of 01.09.1964. The Works Manager rejected representation, and the petitioner was superannuated accordingly.

It was noted that the date of birth recorded in such a government servant’s service book at the time of entry into service by mandate of Rule 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, has to be deemed as his correct date of birth for all purposes, which include superannuation.

Further, it was noted that, since there was no objection to the petitioner’s date of birth, which was initially recorded as 20.02.1967 and later changed based on a notarial affidavit furnished by the petitioner, the change was clearly in the teeth of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, by virtue of Rule 3, the Rules of 1974 have an overriding effect over all other rules. Further, the petitioner’s date of birth, as originally recorded in his service book, i.e., 20.02.1967, was to be regarded as his correct and immutable date of birth. The conclusion, to the contrary, reached by respondents and orders impugned were, therefore, manifestly illegal.

Thus, impugned orders were to be quashed, and a mandamus was to be issued to respondents to ensure, amongst themselves, immediate reinstatement of the petitioner in service, together with all consequential benefits of salary, increment and seniority.