UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERSversusSAMSON ROSHAN

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 16692 of 2025

Union of India and 5 others
                                                          …..Petitioner(s)

                                 Versus

Samson Roshan
                                                        …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : S.P. Singh (A.S.G.I.) with Vivek
                                     Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Manoj Kumar Dhrubvanshi, Satish
                                     Chandra Dwivedi


Chief Justice's Court

              HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
              HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.


1.    Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Shri Satish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the sole
respondent.

2.    This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
28.04.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad ('Tribunal') has partly allowed Original Application
('OA') No.613 of 2016 filed by the respondent and, while setting aside
the order dated 31.08.2015 impugned therein, the Tribunal has issued
directions to the petitioners to correct the respondent's date of birth as
27.08.1958 in all relevant service records including the service book
after taking due cognizance of supporting documents indicated in the
                                     2
                                                  WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

order; treat the respondent as having continued in service till 31.08.2018
and notionally reinstate him in service w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till 31.08.2018,
issue a revised Pension Payment Order (PPO) after counting additional
three years of service and extending all consequential service benefits as
per rules.

3.    The Tribunal, though denied salary to the respondent for the
aforesaid period on the principle of 'No Work, No Wages', has awarded a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to him as compensation for the mental agony,
hardship and loss suffered due to premature retirement, violation of
principles of natural justice and prolonged denial of service related
benefits. Further direction has been issued that, in case the amount as
directed, is not paid within a period of three months, the same shall carry
interest @10% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.

4.    Brief facts are that the respondent was appointed as a Khalasi on
08.05.1979 and was subsequently working as Technician-III. His date of
birth was recorded as 27.08.1958 in various documents including High
School Marksheet, Transfer Certificate issued by one Jan Sewa
Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur, Jabalpur (M.P.), Screening
Panel dated 06.08.1979 prepared by the petitioners, Provident Fund
ledger account, loan documents relating to Northern Railway Primary
Co-operative Bank Ltd. Lucknow and monthly pay slip issued to him
indicated his date of retirement as 31.08.2018.

5.    Grievance of the respondent is that, based upon his date of birth
incorrectly recorded in his service book as 27.08.1955, he was made to
retire on 01.09.2015 on attaining 60 years age and a PPO was issued on
31.08.2015 indicating his date of birth as 27.08.1955. The respondent,
therefore, challenged the PPO dated 31.08.2015 and claimed reliefs that
the petitioners be directed to take the applicant in service on the post of
Technician-II and pay salary w.e.f. 01.09.2015 and also pay as per Fifth
and Sixth Pay Commissions.

6.      The claim raised by the respondent was opposed by the
petitioners by filing counter affidavit before the Tribunal taking a
                                     3
                                                   WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

defense that since in the service book of the respondent, his date of birth
was recorded as 27.08.1955 and the same was filled up, signed and
thumb impression was affixed by the respondent himself, he has no case.
Further stand of the petitioners was that the respondent did not submit
his High School Marksheet before his retirement despite having passed
the said examination, therefore, the petitioners were justified in their
action of retiring the respondent in 2015 based upon 27.08.1955 as his
date of birth.

7.    The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made and after
examining the documents on record, arrived at a conclusion that the date
of birth ‘27.08.1958’ indicated in the High School Marksheet, Transfer
Certificate issued by Jan Sewa Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur,
Jabalpur (M.P.), Screening Panel dated 06.08.1979, Provident Fund
ledger account and loan documents relating to Northern Railway
Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. Lucknow were of significant probative
value, particularly High School Marksheet which is a public document
issued by a recognized educational institution and is considered the most
reliable proof of date of birth. The Tribunal found merit in the
respondent's contention that entry of date of birth as ‘27.08.1955’ made
in the service record was on account of improper verification of the
documents at the time of his initial appointment as Class IV employee.

8.     The Tribunal also observed that the entries in service books of
Group-D employees were often made by clerical staff and such
employees, particularly in late 1970s, were unlikely to be aware of the
procedural formalities or to challenge administrative inaccuracies. The
Tribunal, having accepted the respondent's explanation that he was
unaware of the incorrect entry in the service book, about which, he came
to know around the time of his retirement and, further, based upon
indications made in the monthly salary slips issued to the respondent
indicating 31.08.2018 as his date of retirement, partly allowed the OA
and granted reliefs, as already indicated hereinbefore.
                                      4
                                                     WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

9.     Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that
once, at the time of entry in service, the respondent himself, in his own
handwriting, had indicated his date of birth as 27.08.1955 and not only
signed and affixed his thumb impression on the concerned form/bio-data
(Annexure No.3 to the writ petition), the petitioners were bound to treat
the said date as the correct date of birth and, therefore, if they retired the
respondent after he attained 60 years age in year 2015, their action
cannot be said to be unlawful. By referring to a second supplementary
affidavit filed in this writ petition, submission has been made that the
petitioners initiated inquiry/investigation into veracity of the High
School Marksheet issued to the respondent and found that the Institution
from which the respondent had obtained the said Marksheet, namely Jan
Sewa Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur, Jabalpur (M.P.), was not
found functional in the year 1970-71. Reference has been made to
communications exchanged in between the present Principal of Shaskiya
Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur, Jabalpur and District
Education Officer, Jabalpur, annexed to the second supplementary
affidavit.

10.    It is, therefore, submitted that once the High School Marksheet
relied upon by the respondent is itself ingenuine as the Institution from
which the said marksheet was obtained by him was a non-existent/non-
functional Institution in the year 1970-71, 27.08.1958 indicated therein
as date of birth of the respondent, cannot be relied for any purpose.

11.    Lastly, by referring to the Clause 225 of Indian Railway
Establishment Code (Volume-I) pertaining to date of birth, submission
has been made that once the date of birth is declared by a person on
entering into railway service, the same shall not differ from such
declaration, expressed or implied, for any purpose and in case of literate
staff, date of birth shall be entered in the railway servant's own
handwriting and such date of birth shall be held to be binding and no
alteration of such date shall ordinarily be permitted subsequently. It is,
therefore, submitted that the respondent who, in his own handwriting,
had declared his date of birth as 27.08.1955 while entering into service,
                                    5
                                                  WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

it shall be deemed to be valid for all purposes including the timing of
retirement of the respondent and grant of benefits arising therefrom.

12.   Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has made
submissions that in all documents i.e. High School Marksheet, Transfer
Certificate issued by Jan Sewa Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur,
Jabalpur (M.P.), Screening Panel dated 06.08.1979 prepared by the
petitioners, Provident Fund ledger account and loan documents relating
to Northern Railway Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. Lucknow,
27.08.1958 was indicated as the date of birth of the respondent and once,
in the monthly pay slips, the petitioners had indicated 31.08.2018 as his
date of retirement, they were not justified in retiring the respondent in
2015 based upon an incorrect entry made in the service book/form.

13.   It is further submitted that service book was never shown to the
respondent throughout his service tenure and since no occasion ever
arose for the respondent to get an impression or feeling that the
petitioners were treating his date of birth other than 27.08.1958, he did
not ask for his service book and it was only when the impugned PPO
was issued on 31.08.2015 indicating his incorrect date of birth as
27.08.1955, the respondent approached the Tribunal wherefrom he has
rightly been granted relief. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ
petition with the direction to the petitioners to comply with the order
passed by the Tribunal.

14.    We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

15.   There is no dispute about the fact that except the service
book/form/bio-data appended as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, in
every document, i.e. High School Marksheet, Transfer Certificate issued
by Jan Sewa Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur, Jabalpur (M.P.),
Screening Panel dated 06.08.1979, Provident Fund ledger account, loan
documents relating to Northern Railway Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Lucknow, the date of birth of the respondent has been indicated as
                                      6
                                                    WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

27.08.1958. Further, the pay slips indicate his date of retirement as
31.08.2018.

16.   In view of the above, whether the petitioners can take aid of
communications exchanged in between the Principal of Shaskiya
Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur, Jabalpur and District
Education Officer, Jabalpur which have come in existence in December,
2025 and January 2026, i.e. after the Tribunal decided the OA, we have
to examine the nature of such correspondence in the light of controversy
involved in the matter.

17.   Admittedly and also as has been very fairly submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioners, High School was not an eligibility condition
for appointment on the post of Khalasi, a Class IV employee and,
therefore, as to whether the High School Marksheet was rightly or
wrongly issued by the concerned Institution, cannot affect the service
status of the respondent nor can relief be denied to him on the ground
that the Institution was allegedly found to be non-existent/non-functional
in 1970-71, which stand is only and only based upon the aforesaid
correspondence made in December 2025 and January 2026. As a matter
of fact, validity of the High School Marksheet cannot be made a matter
in issue nor can the petitioners dispute the correctness/validity of the said
certificate at this stage or even otherwise, particularly when the same has
no co-relation with the respondent's entry in service.

18.   Even otherwise, if we examine the nature of correspondence inter
se Principal of Shaskiya Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur,
Jabalpur and District Education Officer, Jabalpur, we find that merely
based upon a telephonic information allegedly received by the Principal,
indication was made that Jan Sewa Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala,
Dhamapur, Jabalpur (M.P.) was not functional in 1970-71. It would be
appropriate to refer the communication made by the Principal on
15.12.2025, which reads as under :-

      "उपरोक्त वि षयांतर्गत लेख है वि सं ु ल अंतर्गत शास ीय /अशास ीय
      शालाओं से दरू भाष े द्वारा सत्र 1970.71 में जनसे ा उ .मा.शाला
      घमापुर जबलपुर ी संचालन ी जान ारी प्राप्त ी र्गई। जिजसमें सत्र
                                     7
                                                   WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

      1970.71 में जनसे ा उ.मा.शाला घमापुर ा संचालिलत होना नहीं पाया
      र्गया। जान ारी आ श्य   ाय ाही हेतु प्रस्तुत।"
19.   Based upon aforesaid communication, the District Education
Officer, Jabalpur (M.P.) communicated to the petitioners herein that Jan
Sewa Uchchatar Madhyamik Shala, Dhamapur, Jabalpur (M.P.) was not
functional in 1970-71. As observed hereinabove, the validity of High
School Marksheet not being a matter in issue and OA having been
decided by the Tribunal not only based upon High School Marksheet but
also transfer certificate, provident fund ledger, salary slips, documents of
loan pertaining to Northern Railway Primary Co-operative Bank
Limited, we do not find any justification on the part of the petitioners to
treat 27.08.1955 as the date of birth of the respondent only and only
based upon one document i.e. form/bio-data (Annexure 3 to the writ
petition).

20.   Although, there is a dispute between the parties as to who had
filled up the form/bio data in the year 1979 when the respondent had
entered into service, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and after perusing voluminous evidence on record, including
petitioners’ own undisputed initial screening list of 1979, we are of the
view that even accepting the case of the petitioners that it was the
respondent who had indicated his date of birth as 27.08.1955 in his own
handwriting in the concerned form/bio-data, we are not inclined to treat
the said document as the conclusive proof of date of birth of the
respondent. Once we are satisfied that in all other documents which are
voluminous in nature, the petitioners themselves had indicated the date
of birth of the respondent as 27.08.1958, issuance of PPO on 31.08.2015
indicating 27.08.1955 as his date of birth and, consequently, retiring him
in 2015 itself, is an act which the Tribunal has rightly found as
unjustified.

21.    In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the
view taken by the Tribunal. The findings recorded in the order impugned
are based upon meticulous examination of voluminous documentary
evidence on record and are not found to be perverse.
                                                                 8
                                                                               WRIA No. - 16692 of 2025

                            22.         The writ petition has no substance; the same is, therefore,
                            dismissed.


                                                            (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

                            April 01, 2026
                            Jyotsana




Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad