Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 129 of 2018 Appellant :- Ramjeet Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Srivastava,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the petitioner-appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of Limitation.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 MAA/-
(Dilip Gupta,J.) (Jayant Banerji,J.)
Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 129 of 2018 Appellant :- Ramjeet Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Srivastava,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.) Order on memo of appeal By means of this Special Appeal the petitioner-appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 7 November 2017 passed by the learned Judge in Writ-A No.52002 of 2017 whereby the plea of the petitioner-appellant seeking directions to the respondents to continue his services as a Class-IV employee treating the date of birth as 2 April 1965 and not as 2 April 1957 recorded in the service book was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.
It was pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Class-IV employee in an institution called Shanti Niketan Inter College Barahi, District-Ghazipur on 1 July 1983. It is stated that in the year 1985 the petitioner acquired High School qualification and the date of birth in the High School mark sheet was mentioned as 2 April 1965. It was stated that a notice was issued by the Committee of Management of the institution that the service of the petitioner- appellant came to an end at the age of his superannuation and he has retired on 30 June 2017. It is stated that the High School certificate of the petitioner-appellant was ignored and the petitioner-appellant has been retired on 30 June 2017, which is unjustified.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment To Services (Determination Of Date Of Birth) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1974') applies in the case of the petitioner-appellant. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974 is quoted below:
"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."
It is evident that the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry in the government service shall be the correct date of birth for all purposes relating to his service.
According to the own statement of the petitioner-appellant, the year of birth recorded in the service book is 1957 and thereafter the petitioner-appellant appeared and passed the High School examination in 1985. Even the application that was filed by the petitioner-appellant before the District Inspector of Schools has been enclosed as annexure-4 to the writ petition complaining about the decision of the Committee of Management is of 25 August 2017. Thus, it was in 2017 that for the first time the petitioner-appellant raised an objection regarding his date of birth recorded in the service book.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the judgment passed by the learned Judge calls for no interference and this Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 MAA/-
(Dilip Gupta,J.) (Jayant Banerji,J.)