The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee cannot retire before the official date of retirement unless the date of birth is first changed in the original service records. This important judgment was delivered by Judge Ajit Kumar in the case of Suresh Yadav vs State of UP And 3 Others (Writ – A No. – 61181 of 2014).

Background:

The petitioner, Suresh Yadav, was appointed as a daily wage clerk at the office of Town Area Committee, Dohri Ghat, Mau in 1984. His services were regularised in 1992. However, in July 1992, his salary was stopped abruptly and his services were terminated. Yadav challenged this in court and was reinstated after a favourable verdict in 2006.

In August 2014, based on some complaints about discrepancies in his date of birth, the Nagar Panchayat Chairman, Dohri Ghat Mau, passed an order deducting Yadav’s salary and retiring him on the basis that his date of birth was 1.1.1964 as per the policy documents of Life Insurance Corporation. This was done without any formal inquiry or show cause notice. Yadav has challenged this order in the present petition.

Important legal issues:

1. Whether an employee can retire before the date according to the employment contract without changing the date of birth

2. Validity of the use of the LIC policy for determining age in employment matters

3. Procedure for changing the date of birth in the service data

4. Need for proper investigation before taking action on complaints about age differences

Observations and ruling of the Court:

Justice Ajit Kumar made some important observations while allowing the petition:

1. In the event of early retirement without a change in employment contract:

“Without changing the date of birth originally recorded in the service record, an employee cannot be retired. The basic philosophy behind the service case law is that there is an employment contract between employer and employee. The service record kept by the employer is part of the employment contract and any change to it must first take place, because this would change the terms of employment.”

2. About the use of the LIC policy for age determination:

“The Life Insurance Corporation policy is not a document for determining age of employment.”

3. On the need for proper research:

“Unless and until a regular investigation into the matter has been conducted, at which the employee involved has been given the opportunity to hear the charges. This aspect of the matter has largely escaped the attention of the Chairman/Employer”

4. On arbitrary acts of authorities:

“The courts have repeatedly held that the measures to be taken by the authorities must be sound and reasoned, particularly in service matters where the interests of employees are at stake and the respondents’ authorities must therefore not act in an arbitrary manner.”

The court relied on Rules 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, which provide that for employees who have not completed secondary school, the date of birth recorded at the time of joining shall be deemed correct and cannot be changed later.

Read also

Final order:

The court quashed the order dated 28.8.2014 passed by the Chairman of Nagar Panchayat. The order was that the petitioner be reinstated and considered in service up to 31.12.2023. The court also ordered payment of salary and recalculation of pension contribution.

The applicant was represented by advocates VK Singh and DK Singh, while CSC, Dileep Kumar Srivastava and S. Tiwari appeared on behalf of the respondents.