Service Record DOB Disputes Must Follow Due Process: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery heard a writ petition challenging orders dated 19.03.2026 and 23.03.2026 that sought to treat an alternate date of birth as the basis for earlier superannuation and thereby curtail the petitioner’s tenure.

The Court summarised that the central question was the correct date of birth to be taken for service and superannuation purposes and whether adverse action could be taken without concluding an inquiry or affording the employee participation. The High Court held that the impugned communications were passed without calling the petitioner to participate in the process and in circumstances where the inquiry outcome was still pending, and therefore set aside the orders and directed that the petitioner would continue in service till the date of retirement recorded in the service book. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Law in regard to determination of correct date of birth or age is well settled that provisions of Rule 2 of Rules 1974, shall be applicable that since at the time of entry into service, the petitioner has not passed High School or equivalent examination, therefore, date of birth recorded in service book at the time of entry shall be deemed to be correct date of birth.

The Court further recorded that "impugned orders dated 19.03.2026 and 23.03.2026, being passed behind the back of petitioner also as well as contrary to above referred position of law and in present set of circumstances, cannot sustain, therefore, set-aside and petitioner will continue to work considering his date of birth as 19.10.1967 i.e. his retirement date would be 31.10.2027. However, respondents will be at liberty to conclude the inquiry if still pending only with participation of the petitioner." This encapsulated the relief granted and the conditional liberty for the respondents to proceed with a fresh, participatory inquiry.

Background

The petitioner was appointed in 1988 and the service book recorded a date of birth which yielded a retirement date of 31.10.2027. Years later, respondents relied upon a Transfer Certificate and other entries that recorded alternate dates of birth and initiated action treating the earlier retirement date as applicable. The petitioner obtained certain documents under the Right To Information Act, 2005 and alleged that an inquiry had been initiated but no conclusive report, including any forensic analysis, was placed on record. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on earlier decisions of this Court including Brij Kishore v. State of U.P. & Ors and Union of India & Ors. v. Nathan Singh to contend that principles of natural justice were not complied with before taking an adverse decision affecting tenure. Counsel for the respondents relied on Union of India v. Harnam Singh ( "1993 SCC (2) 162": 1993 CaseBase(SC) 270) and relied upon the documentary inconsistencies in various identity documents to justify further inquiry.

The Court applied Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 and held that where, at the time of entry into service, the employee had not passed the High School or equivalent examination, the date of birth recorded in the service book at that time would be deemed to be the correct date for all purposes, including superannuation, and no correction applications would ordinarily be entertained. The Court took note of and relied upon the Supreme Court precedent reproduced in the judgment, citing U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri ( "(2005) 11 SCC 465": 2005 CaseBase(SC) 1107), which underscored the binding force of the rule and its substituted formulation. On the facts the Court found that the service book entry of 19.10.1967 lacked overwriting or whitener and that the alternate entry of 14.04.1966 involved unexplained overwriting; further, the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the disputed inquiry. For these reasons the Court set aside the communications impugned in the petition and directed that the petitioner would continue to be treated as in service till 31.10.2027 while permitting the respondents to conclude any pending inquiry only with participation of the petitioner.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 5542 of 2026
Case Title: Yatish Singh Versus State of U.P. and 4 others
Appearances: 
For the Petitioner(s): Ashish Kumar, Rahul Mishra
For the Respondent(s): Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Tanisha Jahangir Monir

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 167