The Allahabad High Court has said in an order that the date of birth recorded in the service book is binding on both the employee and the employer. It cannot be changed after retirement.
A single-judge bench of Justice J.J. Muneer passed this order, while hearing a petition filed by Bachchan Singh.
The petitioner retired as a Collection Amin on October 31, 2015. His date of birth in the service book recorded is October 10, 1955. This date of birth is also recorded in his High School Certificate earned in the year 1968 from the UP Board of High School and Secondary Education, Allahabad.
The petition submitted that the petitioner was drawing pension since 2015 and has been paid all his post retiral benefits. Now, by the order dated March 12, 2021, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Shikohabad, District Firozabad, on the basis of a certificate from the school where the petitioner had read, has held that the petitioner’s date of birth is October 10, 1950.
Counsel for the petitioner said it is trite law that an employee’s date of birth recorded in the service book binds not only the employee, but the employer as well, and it cannot be changed as it is said on the eve of his retirement. Here, the employer is trying to revise or has revised the employee’s date of birth after the retirement of the employee.
He has looked into the employee’s pre-high-school records and re-determined the employee’s date of birth, going against the Boards’ High School Certificate as also the service book. The order is prima facie perverse and prima facie shows misfeasance in office on the part of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Shikohabad, District Firozabad, the Court said.
The Court stated that the petitioner is permitted to implead Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who passed the order within three days.
Let separate notice issue to the newly-added respondent in his personal capacity to showcause why appropriate action may not be taken against him for passing the order, which prima facie is not only perverse, but one made mala fide against all canons of law that govern an employee’s date of birth, determination of age and acceptance of date of birth recorded in the service book, after the petitioner’s retirement.
“By the order, the petitioner has been ordered to refund salary that he earned for a period of five years.
The said period of time is one, during which the petitioner worked. Assuming that he worked for an extra period of time, the petitioner has to be paid for the period of time that the petitioner rendered work, recovery of which is prohibited as beggar by Article 23 of the Constitution.
Also, the Court finds that the orders are prima facie illegal, balance of inconvenience is in favour of the Petitioner and in the event a retired employee is compelled to refund a sum of Rs 27,85,388, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury”, the Court observed.
Read Also: Allahabad HC rejects bail plea of bank officer accused of forgery
“Until furthers orders, operation of the order dated March 12, 2021 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Shikohabad, District Firozabad and the recovery citation dated March 18, 2021 issued by the Tehsildar, Shikohabad, District Firozabad, shall remain suspended and no recovery shall be made from the Petitioner”, the Court said.
“Let this order be communicated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shikohabad, District Firozabad through the District Magistrate, Firozabad by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours”, the Court ordered. The Court fixed June 24 as the next date of hearing.