Naurangi Lal Sharma vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4442 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Naurangi Lal Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 12 August, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


2025:AHC:136144
 
Reserved :- 05/08/2025
 
Delivered :- 12/08/2025
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 35739 of 1998
 

 
Petitioner :- Naurangi Lal Sharma
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Pratap Singh Kaus,L.K. Pandey,Sushil Kumar,Krishna Pratap Singh Kaushik
 
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Jitendra Sarin
 
with
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6614 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Naurangi Lal Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Pratap Singh Kaushik
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Sarin,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. In the present case, petitioner has not declared when he was initially appointed as Lineman at U.P. State Electricity Board though from perusal of photocopy of service book, it appears that he was appointed in the year 1996.

2. Petitioner has come up with a case that his date of birth is 01.07.1945 and same was disclosed when he was appointed whereas it is case of respondents that initially petitioner has disclosed only his year of birth as 1939 which was later on corrected by petitioner himself and new date of birth was mentioned as 01.07.1945. On above correction, petitioner has put his signature.

3. Neither petitioner nor respondents have created any dispute in regard to date of birth during petitioner's long service period, however, when petitioner was served with a notice on 20.01.1997 that in terms of his birth year being 1939, he would retire on 30.06.1997, he submitted objections that his date of birth be considered as 01.07.1945. In support of his claim, he submitted photocopy of his horoscope and a photocopy of certificate issued by L.I.C. that his date of birth is 01.07.1945.

4. When aforesaid grievance was not considered, the petitioner rushed to this Court by way of filing a Writ A No. 16361/1997, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.1997 that a decision be taken in regard to claim of petitioner. For reference, relevant part of order is quoted below :-

"On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage. Electricity Urban Distribution Division-II, Kishore Nagar with the direction to the Executive Engineer, ED-III, Aligarh, the respondent no.3 to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law and expeditiously, say, within a period of one month, a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioner before the said authority.

Dt/- 12.05.1997"

5. In pursuance of above order, claim of petitioner was considered, however, by an order dated 07.04.1998, it was rejected on a ground that petitioner under his own signature has made correction in service book and by cutting year as disclosed earlier i.e. 1939, he mentioned his date of birth as 01.07.1945, which was considered as an act of forgery. For reference, impugned order in its entirety is quoted below :-

" न्यायालय आदेश दिनांक 12-5-97 के अनुसार श्री नौरंगीलाल शर्मा लाइन मैन के प्रार्थनापत्र दिनांक 20-1-98 जो रजिस्टर्ड डाक से प्राप्त हुआ को निस्तारित किया जा रहा है। तथा इस आदेश के द्वारा सभी प्रार्थनापत्र निस्तारित किये जा रहे हैं।

श्री नौरंगीलाल शर्मा, लाइन मैन का जन्म तिथि सेवापुस्तिका में 1-7-1939 (एक जुलाई उन्नीस सो उन्तालिस) दी गयी है। जिसके अनुसार उनको सेवा निवृत्ति का नोटिस दिया गया। जिसके उपरान्त ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि इसी बीच में श्री नौरंगीलाल शर्मा, लाइनमैन ने स्वयं सेवा पुस्तिका में मौका पाकर बदलाव/कटिंग कर दिया तथा जन्म तिथि 1-7-1939 के जगह 1-7-1945 कर दी। कटिंग पर श्री नौरंगोलाल शर्मा लाइन मैन के हस्ताक्षर हैं तथा किसी अन्य अधिकारी कर्मचारी के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है। इससे यह साफ प्रतीत होता है कि श्री नौरंगोलाल शर्मा लाइनमैन ने जालसाजी तथा चालाकी से मौका पाकर अपनी जन्म तिथि का बदलाव किया है। ताकि वह समय पर सेवानिवृत्ति नहीं हो पावे।

अतः उपरोक्त कारणों को वजह से श्री नौरंगी लाल शार्मा लाइनमैन को जन्म तिथि ठीक (करेक्शन) करने का प्रश्न नहीं होता है तथा उनका प्रार्थनापत्र खारिज किया जाता है। साथ ही परिषद आदेश सं० 2323-पेंशन-31/रा०नि०प०-95 दिनांक 30-10-1995 एवं शासन आदेश सं० 41/2-89 नियुक्ति दिनांक 28 मई 1974 के अनुसार भी उनकी मांग गलत है । एवं उपरोक्त आशय का निर्णय इस कार्यालय पत्रांक 2582 दि० 18-6-97 जो कि अधिशासी अभियंता विद्युत नग० वितरण खण्ड-सेकेंड नाेएडा काे सम्बंधित है के द्वारा पहले भी जारी किया जा चुका है।"

6. Aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition.

7. The petitioner has filed present writ petition after his retirement.

8. This writ petition was remained pending for more than 2 ½ decade. Meanwhile, it was dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.03.2004 and a restoration/recall application was filed on 21.12.2006 which was finally allowed on 11.03.2014 i.e. writ petition remained dismissed in default for about a decade.

9. Later on, writ petition was again dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.09.2014 and again on a restoration application, it was restored after about 11 years on 26.05.2025 and subsequently, matter was argued and was reserved for judgment on 05.08.2025.

10. It appears that during pendency of present writ petition, petitioner's claim for pension was not adequately addressed, therefore, he has filed another Writ A No. 6614/2025 which is connected with this writ petition with a prayer to pay his retiral dues considering that he was retired on 30.06.1997.

11. Sri Krishna Pratap Singh Kaushik, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has not committed any forgery. He has always declared his year of birth as 1945. He has submitted a photocopy of his horoscope which also shows that his date of birth was 01.07.1945 as well as certificate issued by L.I.C. which has also mentioned his date of birth as 01.07.1945. Forgery, if any, was committed by the respondents

12. Per contra, Sri Jitendra Sarin, learned counsel for respondent-2 has submitted that according to service book, petitioner has mentioned his birth year as 1939. Later on, under his signature, he has made correction that his date of birth is 01.07.1945. No document was produced either at the stage of appointment or during his long service period to support his claim of year of birth as 1945. The document such as horoscope cannot be relied upon since there is no proof that it was prepared when petitioner was born though he has not able to dispute date of birth mentioned in horoscope correspondens to 01.07.1945.

13. So far as certificate issued by L.I.C. is concerned, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that it was issued on 10.06.1993 i.e. few years before retirement of petitioner. In regard to prayer made in second writ petition, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that if retiral dues w.e.f. 30.06.1997 are still not paid, it will be paid within a short period.

14. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

15. As referred above, the petitioner appears to be entered in service way back in the year 1966. A case of the petitioner that he has submitted document in support of his claim that his date of birth was 01.07.1945, when he entered into service, however, such argument is unsupported.

16. From bare perusal of photocopy of service book, in front of date of birth, birth year was mentioned i.e. 1939 (उन्नीस सो उन्तालिस) which was cut and new date of birth and year was mentioned as 1945 (उन्नीस सो पैतालिस)(01.07.1945). Aforesaid correction is under signature of petitioner which is not disputed. For reference, scanned image of copy of service book is pasted below :-

17. Petitioner has claimed that correction was made by respondents, however, it remained only a vague allegation without any corroboration. It is not disputed that there is a signature of petitioner above the correction. Signature is undisputed. Petitioner has not able to show any reason for making signature, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that corrections were made at the behest of respondents. There is no allegation of malafides also.

18. Now the claim of petitioner is based on photocopy of horoscope and the photocopy of certificate issued by LIC.

19. As referred above, certificate issued by LIC is of the year 1993, therefore, it cannot be relied upon. So far as copy of horoscope is concerned, no doubt, declaration therein correspondences the date of birth i.e. 01.07.1945, however, there is nothing on record that horoscope was made at the time when petitioner was born since horoscope is made much later on.

20. There is another factor that petitioner has never submitted these documents during his long service period. Court also takes note that in service book, neither date nor month of birth was mentioned. Only the year 1939 was mentioned which was later on cut and subsequently he has mentioned his date of birth as 01.07.1945.

21. In aforesaid circumstances, there is no error that petitioner was declared retired on 30.06.1997 on basis of his birth year i.e. 1939, therefore, relief sought in present writ petition is denied, hence, writ petition stands dismissed.

22. So far as second writ petition is concerned which is in regard to settlement of retiral dues/benefits of petitioner is disposed of with an observation that in case benefits (considering him to be retired w.e.f. 30.06.1997) are not paid till date, the respondents will pay it within eight weeks from today with legally permissible component of the interest.

Order Date :- August 12, 2025

N. Sinha

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]