Allahabad High Court
Rama Kant Tiwari vs U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. ... on 27 August, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved
Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:50327
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT-A No.1563 of 2024
Rama Kant Tiwari .. Petitioner
vs.
U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. Thru. The Managing Director Lko. And 2 Others Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner(s) :- Dinesh Kumar
Tripathi,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) :- Shishir Jain
Court No.-4
Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.
JUDGMENT
(27.08.2025)
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.
2. The petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the common retirement notice no. 436/13 WCI/2023 dated 12.09.2023 so for relates with the petitioner at serial no.3 issued by the opp. party no.2 which is annexure no.1 to this writ petition. and also summoned the original service book with the medical certificate dated 08.02.1999 issued by the CMO Bhagalpur Bihar, in the interest of justice.
II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to treat his date of birth in his service record as 02.02.1966 instead of 08.02.1964 according the medical certificate issued on dated 08.02.1999 by the CMO Bhagalpur Bihar school living certificate.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to work on the post Helper till 29.02.2026 according the corrected date of birth 02.02.1966.
IV. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to decide the representation of the petitioner forthwith."
3. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 07.03.2025. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder :-
"1. Heard.
2. Dispute pertains to the date of birth of the petitioner. As per the petitioner his date of birth should be 15.09.1966 vis a vis date of birth of the petitioner of 08.02.1964 as per the Department. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on 21.01.1985 as Helper on Daily Wage basis. At that stretch of time, no service book was prepared. He has been categorized in Group B on work charge basis vide order dated 02.02.1999, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition.
3. It is contended that on the basis of the date of birth of 08.02.1964, the petitioner has been retired on 29.02.2024, and the petitioner claims that he should be continued in service as per his correct date of birth i.e. 15.02.1966.
4. As per the xerox copy of the service book, which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-6 to the petition, it emerges that service book has been prepared on 13.02.2009.
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his original service book went missing, which has now resulted in the respondents preparing a second service book, which has been prepared in February, 2009.
6. Refuting the same, Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation states that the service book of the petitioner has been prepared in the year 2009 for the first time. He further states on the basis of averment made in para 3 of the counter affidavit that the service book prepared in February, 2009 is not a duplicate service book for the reasons that word 'Duplicate' has not been used.
7. Aforesaid argument of Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel is prima facie found to the fallacious inasmuch as admittedly once the petitioner had been categorized in the work charge establishment on 02.02.1999 obviously his service book must have been prepared and a person cannot be without service book right since the year 1999 till the year 2009.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the letter issued by the E.P.F. Trust dated 16.06.2006, a copy of which is Annexure-6 to the rejoinder affidavit, which indicates that as per the Master Data, the date of birth of the petitioner is 19.02.1966. Said letter further indicates that as per the application, the date of birth is 15.02.1967. Aforesaid observation pertaining to 15.02.1967 prima facie may not detain the Court inasmuch as the dispute does not pertain to the year 1967 as the date of birth of the petitioner, the dispute only being between the year 1964 and 1966.
9. On the other hand, Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel has taken the Court to various documents that had been issued by the E.P.F. Trust as have been referred to in the enquiry report filed as S.C.A.-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 24.10.2024, to indicate that in various letters sent by the E.P.F., date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 08.02.1964.
10. Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the Corporation has also stated that in para 10 of the writ petition date of appointment of the petitioner has been indicated as 01.10.1982 and he argues that in case year of birth as claimed by him is 1966 vis a vis year of appointment is 1982 that would make the petitioner minor at the time of his appointment.
11. Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel also states that as per the service book of the year 2009, the date of appointment of the petitioner is 01.10.1982.
4. At the very outset, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, states that the year of appointment of the petitioner is 1985.
5. The petitioner claims his date of birth to be 02.02.1966, vis--vis the date of 08.02.1964, as maintained by the respondents on the basis of the date of birth recorded in the service records.
6. The original service book has been produced by Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, and has been perused, which indicates that the date of birth recorded in numerals is '08.2.1964'. The numerals '08' and '4' as find place in "08-2-1964", appear to have been overwritten. The service book has been prepared on 18.02.2009.
7. In case the date of birth as indicated by the petitioner is seen, the petitioner would retire on attaining the age of superannuation on the last day of February, 2026, vis--vis considering the date of birth of 08.02.1964 as is recorded in the service book, he has been retired on 29.02.2024.
8. In support of his date of birth being 02.02.1966, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following documents/ letters, namely, a seniority list dated 04.05.2005 indicating the date of birth as 02.02.1966, a copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition. Reliance has also been placed on the following documents as annexed in the rejoinder affidavit dated 12.07.2024, namely, (a) the nominee data sent by the Corporation indicating the date of birth as 15.02.1966, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the rejoinder affidavit; (b) the identity card indicating the date of birth as 15.02.1966, a copy of which is annexure-3 to the rejoinder affidavit; (c) a letter dated 30.07.2005 sent by the Deputy Project Manager to the Chief Project Manager indicating that the service book of the petitioner was sent in original, a copy of which is annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit; (d) a letter dated 22.10.2005 sent by the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation indicating that the service book of the petitioner in original is being sent, a copy of which is annexure-5 to the rejoinder affidavit; (e) a letter sent by the Secretary of EPF Trust indicating that, as per information received from the Unit and as per the master data, the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.02.1966 while in the application, it is 15.02.1967, a copy of which is annexure-6 to the rejoinder affidavit.
9. Sri Dinesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Lal vs. Hindustan Copper Limited and others1 to contend that the respondents cannot change the date of birth of the petitioner at the fag end of his service.
10. On the other hand, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, in order to indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.02.1964, has placed reliance on the service book, which records the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.02.1964.
11. Placing reliance on the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 22/25.11.2024, Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents in order to indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.02.1964, has placed reliance on the identity card dated 19.09.2024, the Aadhaar Card, the EPF Trust data, the application dated 21.08.2023 moved by the petitioner for payment of 90% advance from the CPF indicating the year of retirement as 2024, the form dated 21.08.2023 indicating the date of birth as 08.02.1964, as well as the unit data of the EPF, which indicates the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.02.1964. All the aforesaid documents have been annexed from page-14 to 26 of the second supplementary counter affidavit.
12. Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, fairly states that the initial service records have gone missing. He further states that with respect to the letters referred to above by the petitioner, such letters are not available on the records of the Corporation and, consequently, could not be verified.
13. Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others vs. Shyam Kishore Singh2 as well as an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited and others vs. Avinash Kumar Tiwari3, to contend that the date of birth of an employee cannot be changed at the fag end of the service career, even if it is erroneous.
14. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records including the service record as produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved by the retirement notice dated 12.09.2023 so far as it relates to him, whereby the date of retirement of the petitioner has been indicated as 29.02.2024 on the basis of his date of birth of 08.02.1964.
15. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to treat his date of birth in his service records as 02.02.1966 instead of 08.02.1964, and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to work on the post of Helper till 29.02.2026, according to the corrected date of birth of 02.02.1966.
16. In support of his date of birth being 02.02.1966, the petitioner has placed reliance on the following documents, namely, (a) a seniority list dated 04.05.2005, (b) nominee data sent by the Corporation, which indicates his date of birth as 15.02.1966, (c) an identity card indicating the date of birth as 15.02.1966 and (d) a letter of the Secretary of EPF Trust indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.02.1966 while in the application it is 15.02.1967.
17. Reliance has also been placed on a letter dated 30.07.2005 sent by the Deputy Project Manager to the Chief Project Manager indicating that the service book of the petitioner was sent in original as well as a letter dated 22.10.2005 sent by the Deputy Project Manager of the Corporation indicating that the service book of the petitioner in original is being sent.
18. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it emerges that though the petitioner is claiming his date of birth as 02.02.1966, yet from certain documents on which he himself has placed reliance, a different date of birth of 15.02.1966 is emerging, while in the application, the date of birth is indicated as 15.02.1967.
19. On the other hand, on the basis of the documents produced/annexed by the respondents, the date of birth emerges as 08.02.1964.
20. The documents on which reliance has been placed by the respondents are as under:-
(a) the service book indicating the date of birth as 08.02.1964, though there are certain corrections/ interpolations. In the said service book, so far as the date of birth recorded in numerals is concerned, the numerals "08" and "4" in the date of birth "08-2-1964" appear to have been overwritten, and the service book was prepared on 18.02.2009;
(b) an identity card dated 19.09.2024;
(c) the Aadhaar Card;
(d) the EPF Trust data;
(e) an application dated 21.08.2023;
(f) the form dated 21.08.2023; and
(g) the unit data of the EPF,
all of which indicate the date of birth of the petitioner as 08.02.1964.
21. Admittedly, the initial service record of the petitioner has gone missing and even the letters as referred to by the petitioner indicating that the service book of the petitioner in original was sent, as indicated above, are also not available on record of the Corporation.
22. Thus, from the perusal of the documents on which reliance has been placed by both the learned counsels for the parties, the various dates of birth of the petitioner emerge as under :-
(i) 02.02.1966 as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition;
(ii) 15.02.1966;
(iii) 15.02.1967; and
(iv) 08.02.1964.
Also, the initial service record of the petitioner is missing.
23. Considering the aforesaid vast discrepancies in the dates of birth and the initial service record of the petitioner having gone missing, it is now to be ascertained whether this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be in a position to ascertain the correct date of birth of the petitioner.
24. In this regard, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gunwant Kaur (Smt) and others vs. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and others4 has held as under :-
When the petition raises questions of fact of a complex nature, which may for their determination require oral evidence to be taken, and on that account the High Court is of the view that the dispute may not appropriately be tried in a writ petition, the High Court may decline to try a petition.
25. The Honble Supreme Court, in its Constitution Bench judgment in Thansingh Nathmal and others vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others5, has held as under :-
Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed.
26. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Atmanand Singh and others6 has also placed reliance on the earlier judgment in case of Gunwant Kaur (supra).
27. Recently, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others7 has held that where disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
28. From the aforesaid judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, it thus emerges that the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. Further, where disputes can be decided on the basis of an affidavit evidence and no elaborate evidence is required to be led, the High Court would be justified in granting a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
29. When the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court is seen in the facts of the instant case, it clearly emerges that there are four different dates of birth of the petitioner, and as to which date of birth is correct, would have to be determined by this Court. However, the said determination would not be possible without elaborate evidence being led by the parties, inasmuch as the determination of the correct date of birth would require elaborate examination and evidence to establish and arrive at a finding of the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Whether the service book indicating the date of birth of the petitioner has been interpolated, whether the seniority list of the petitioner indicating his date of birth was correctly issued, whether the identity card is bearing the correct date of birth of the petitioner, etc., all require elaborate evidence to be led by the parties, which, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, would not be possible in the writ jurisdiction, as is being exercised by this Court.
30. Thus, none of judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the parties have any relevance in the facts of the case presently.
31. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to file a suit for declaration of his correct date of birth before the competent court of law.
32. The consequences shall follow upon the declaration of the correct date of birth of the petitioner by the competent court.
33. The service book be returned back to Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondents today itself in Court.
[Abdul Moin, J.]
Order Date :- August 27, 2025
cks/-
