JUDGMENT Dr. T. N Singh, J 1. Panel Lawyer, Shri P. D. Agarwal, has very ably contested unfortunately a very wholesome and salutary claim of the plaintiff which does not evidently stand constitutional cavil. The decisions relied on I would definitely look into but I have no hesitation to say at once that those have no relevance to the lis. 2. The point for consideration is. whether the Court of appeal below was justified in setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court up holding plaintiff's claim that his premature retirement by the State invoking paragraphs 84 and 85 (1) of the M. P. Financial Code, for short "the Code", was illegal. This contention was indeed rightly disposed of by the trial Court on the basis what is to be found on the face of Ex. D-3 itself and what is to be read in sub-para (2) of para 85 of the Code aforesaid which I quote, and indeed both sub-paras:- "85 (1) if a Government servant is unable to state his exact date of birth, but can state the year, or year and month of birth, the 1st July or the 16th of the month, respectively, may be treated as the date of his birth. (2) If he is only able to state his approximate age, his date of birth may be assumed to be the corresponding date after deducting the number of years representing his age from his date of appointment. 3. I must also note right now, immediately, the relevance of sub-para (2) and purport of the endorsement which finds place in Ex. D-3 in the context thereof. I quote that:- HINDI This endorsement is, however, significantly vetted HINDI by the concerned officer, who attested it and also affixed the date 18-5-1979. How this endorsement came to be recorded on the face of the document has also to be noted. The document is the letter dated 16-5-1979 addressed by the District Excise officer, Shivpuri, to the plaintiff informing him that in his service Book the date of his birth wag not recorded and only the year of his birth was recorded as 1923. The plaintiff was asked to furnish particulars, as also proof in support thereof, concerning his date of birth. 4. The plaintiff was asked to furnish particulars, as also proof in support thereof, concerning his date of birth. 4. The short question therefore is, whether para 84 of the Code relied on by Shri Agarwal, in these circumstances, can have at all any relevance or field to operate. To this question there can only be a single answer, a clear and firm ‘no'. what para 84 contemplates is that entry of "date of birth" in a Service Book of a Government servant once recorded "would be deemed to be absolutely conclusive, and except in the case of a clerical error no revision of such a declaration shall be allowed to be made at a later period for any purpose whatever." I wonder how in the face of what is to be read in Ex. D-3, namely admission of the State that there was no date of birth in fact recorded in the Service Book, para 84 can at all be invoked. It was State's own case that only the year, and no date, was recorded in plaintiff's Service Book. Indeed, because the date was to be recorded, a query for that purpose was made. 5. The next question which falls for determination is, whether ignoring the endorsement on Ex. D-3 of the plaintiff, unilaterally and arbitrarily the State could validly invoke sub-para (1) of para 85 and enter in his service Book his date of birth as 1st of July 1923 True it is besides the endorsement in Ex. D-3, no proof of the claim made was filed by the plaintiff. But the question still would be, whether the proof, therefore, was called and any enquiry held the refute the claim made. Indeed, the question would also be, whether the plaintiff was warned that his claim would be rejected if he did not file proof in support of his claim and whether indeed there was any material before the concerned authority to hold that the claim was false. 6. I have no doubt that the power under para 85 (1) must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily and that for exercise of the power there must exist cogent reasons and statutory grounds. When a claim is made under sub-para (2) of para 85 it becomes the duty of the officer concerned to investigate that claim and not to invoke arbitrarily the power under para sub-para (1). When a claim is made under sub-para (2) of para 85 it becomes the duty of the officer concerned to investigate that claim and not to invoke arbitrarily the power under para sub-para (1). It may be noted that sub-para (2) of para 85 does not at all call for proof for the claim made the only thing a Government servant is required to do there under is to state his approximate age and to do nothing else. Only when his claim or statement is not accepted that an inquiry may be held. Accordingly, the arbitrary act of the State in recording in Service Book of the plaintiff the date of his birth as 1st July 1923, invoking sub-para (1) of para 85 is evidently wholly illegal and unconstitutional The arbitrary action of the State cannot be countenanced by Article 16 of the Constitution. It is too late in the day to contest the point that Art. 16 interdicts each and every arbitrary act of the State "in matters relating to employment" under the State, impinging upon a citizen's right to livelihood. (See Vijay Narain AIR 1980 SC 840 D. S. Nakara AIR 1983 SC 130 Muralidhar Balai 1986 (II) MPWN 57 and Rajabai Gorkar (second Appeal No. 180 of 1986 decided by this Court on 5-1-1987). 7. Now, the case-law cited by Shri Agarwal. The decision in BadamilaI 1982 MPWN 187 is evidently on para 84 only. In that case, this Court was not at all called upon to consider the scope and ambit of the provision of sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 85.Relience thereon is, therefore, evidently, misconceived. The other decision, in Makaradhwaj v. State of M.P. 1974 JLJ 71 would not also so be available to the State. Indeed, in that case also there is no reference to, or discussion of, the provisions of sub-paras (1) and (2) of para 85, it is based also merely on para 84 of the Code. The third case is of State of M. P. v. Gokul Prasad 1971 JLJ 410 which is pressed in support of the contention that person taking advantage of compulsory retirement cannot challenge the order. The third case is of State of M. P. v. Gokul Prasad 1971 JLJ 410 which is pressed in support of the contention that person taking advantage of compulsory retirement cannot challenge the order. This decision also does not, on facts, apply to the instant case because in the instant case no order or compulsory retirement under S. 465(b) of Civil Services Regulations passed against the plaintiff but action was taken against him under paras 84 and 85 (1) of the Code Accordingly, this decision also cannot help Shri Agarwal who could not manage to have a smooth sailing despite best efforts. The State's boat must sink with the burden of the unholy plea so as to offer to the citizen his lawful dues. 8. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The decree and judgment passed by the Court below are set aside and those of the trial Court are restored.