Sajjad Husain LawSajjad Husain Law Associates

Allahabad High Court Judgment Summary

Yatish Singh v. State of U.P. & Others

Writ-A No. 5542 of 2026

Decided on: 05.05.2026

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Yatish Singh, was appointed as a Shramik in Harduaganj Thermal Power Plant on 18.03.1988. At the time of his appointment, his date of birth was recorded in the service records as 19.10.1967 based on a medical examination report, making his retirement date 31.10.2027.

After about 35 years of service, the department initiated an inquiry alleging that the date of birth recorded in the service book had been altered. The authorities relied upon a Transfer Certificate showing the date of birth as 14.04.1966 and proposed retirement on 30.04.2026, nearly 18 months earlier than the existing retirement date.

The petitioner challenged departmental communications dated 19.03.2026 and 23.03.2026, contending that:

1. His date of birth at the time of entry into service was 19.10.1967.
2. Any alteration in service records was never proved to have been made by him.
3. No opportunity of hearing was given before changing his retirement date.
4. Under the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is final.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the employer could alter the petitioner's date of birth and retire him earlier on the basis of a Transfer Certificate.
2. Whether such action could be taken without giving the employee an opportunity of hearing.
3. Whether Rule 2 of the 1974 Rules protected the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service.

Findings of the Court

The Court observed that:

1. The petitioner had not passed High School when he entered service; therefore, Rule 2 of the 1974 Rules made the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service the decisive date for all service purposes.
2. There were conflicting records regarding the petitioner's date of birth, and even the departmental inquiry had not reached a final conclusion. The forensic and vigilance reports were still awaited.
3. The alleged overwriting in the service book had not been proved, nor was there any evidence showing that the petitioner was responsible for such alteration.
4. The petitioner was not associated with the inquiry and no opportunity of hearing was granted before taking an adverse decision affecting his service tenure. This violated principles of natural justice.
5. Reliance upon a Transfer Certificate issued years after joining service was contrary to Rule 2 of the 1974 Rules.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri (2005) 11 SCC 465, reiterating that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is final and ordinarily cannot be altered.

Decision

The High Court:

1. Quashed the departmental communications/orders dated 19.03.2026 and 23.03.2026.
2. Held that the petitioner's date of birth shall continue to be treated as 19.10.1967.
3. Directed that his retirement date shall remain 31.10.2027.
4. Granted liberty to the respondents to complete any pending inquiry, but only after associating the petitioner and following principles of natural justice.

Key Legal Principle

Where an employee had not passed High School at the time of entering service, the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service attains finality under Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, and cannot be altered behind the employee's back or on the basis of subsequent documents without due process.

Case Detail

WRIT - A No. - 5542 of 2026

Yatish Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors

https://t.me/sajjadhusainlaw/359