JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. Wasi Ullah Siddiqui is a Private Secretary in the establishment of the High Court filed a writ petition No. 17834 of 1990 in this Court claiming that his date of birth is not 20-9-1932 which is recorded in his High School Certificate hut in fact his real date of birth is 11-2-1935. The learned Single Judge of this Court before whom this writ petition, came up for hearing, allowed the writ petition by the judgment dated 1st November, 1991 and by the said judgment further directed that the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad shall hold an enquiry into the application made by WASI Ullah Siddiqui for correction of his date of birth and determine the same after giving an opportunity to the applicant namely, WASI Ullah Siddiqui as also those persons who were interested in contesting the said claim. Against the judgment dated 1-11-91 three Special Appeals have been filed to this Court. Sri WASI Ullah Siddiqui filed a Special Appeal being Special Appeal No, 140/91. The High Court also filed a Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 155 of 1991. During the pendency of the writ petition Rajender Prasad Kukreti also filed an application for impleadment in the writ petition. This application was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Rajendra Prasad Kukreti was also a Personal Assistant in the High Court at the time when he filed an application for impleadment. Since his promotion was affected in view of the stay order passed by the learned Single Judge he was impleaded as a party and consequently, he has now come up in Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. In view of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the U. P . Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad went into the question as to what is the actual date of birth of Wasi Ullah Siddiqui. On 3-3-92 a report was submitted by the Board to the effect that it did not accept the claim of Wasi Ullah Siddiqui that his date of birth was 11-3-1935 and recorded a categorical finding that in fact the date of birth of Wasi Ullah was 20-9-1932. On 3-3-92 a report was submitted by the Board to the effect that it did not accept the claim of Wasi Ullah Siddiqui that his date of birth was 11-3-1935 and recorded a categorical finding that in fact the date of birth of Wasi Ullah was 20-9-1932. In view of this finding given by the Board so far as Special Appeal No. 140/1991 is concerned which was filled by Wasl Ullah Siddiqui since his claim of change of date of birth was not accepted by the Board, his Special Appeal has already been disposed of by us today. Sri S. C. Budhwar appearing in, the Special Appeal filed by the High Court and Sri L. P. Nathani learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the Special Appeal filed by Rajender Prasad Kukreti have, however, urged that though Wasi Ullah Siddiqui is not entitled to any relief in view of the report submitted by the Board yet they pressed their appeals on the legal ground as to whether the view taken, by the learned Single Judge that the U. P, Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules) are applicable to the High Court employees or not. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that 1974 Rules are not applicable to the High Court employees on the ground that these rules do not lay down the 'conditions of service' of the High Court employees. 3. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India framed rules with effect from 13-7-76 namely, the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct), Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Rules) laying down the conditions of service of persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In 1976 Rules there was no specific rule laying down the manner in which the date of birth of the staff was to be determined. Rule 40 of 1976 Rules, however, lays down as follows : "40. Regulation of other matters-(1) All officers and servants of the Court shall be subject to the superintendence and control of the Chief Justice. In 1976 Rules there was no specific rule laying down the manner in which the date of birth of the staff was to be determined. Rule 40 of 1976 Rules, however, lays down as follows : "40. Regulation of other matters-(1) All officers and servants of the Court shall be subject to the superintendence and control of the Chief Justice. (2) In respect of all matters (not provided for in these rules) regarding the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Court including matters relating to their conduct, control and discipline, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to Government servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall apply to the officers and servants of the Court subject to such modifications, variations, and exceptions if any, as the Chief Justice;, may, from time to time, specify : Provided that no order containing modifications, variations or exceptions in rules or orders relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions shall be made by the Chief Justice except with, the approval of the Governor : Provided further that the said powers exercisable under rules and orders of Government of Uttar Pradesh by the Governor shall be exercised by the Chief Justice or by such officer as he may, by general or special order, direct. (3) If any doubt arises in regard tec a particular post in the establishment being corresponding to a post in the State Government the matter will be decided by the Chief Justice. 4. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 40 of 1976 Rules above clearly provides that in respect of all matters not provided for in these rules regarding the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Court including matters relating to their conduct, control and discipline, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to Government servants holding corresponding posts in the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall apply to the officers and servants of the Court subject to such modifications, variations and exceptions, if any, as the Chief Justice may, from time to time specify. In regard to the determination of the date of birth there is no specific rule in the 1976 Rules framed by this Court, the State Government, however, in exercise of the powers under the proviso in Article 309 of the Constitution have made rules as to in what manner the date of birth of government servant would be determined. These rules are nomenclatured as Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Services: (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. They came into effect from 28-5-74. The original rule 2 was substituted by notification of the Government dated 7-6-80 with effect from 28-5-74. The rules as amended which apply to the facts of the present case are quoted below :- "1. Short title and commencement :-(1) These Rules may be called the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. (2) They shall come into force at once. 2. Determination of correct date of birth of age. -The date of birth of a Government servant as recorded in the certificate of his having passed the High School or equivalent examination at the time of his entry into the Government service or where a Government servant has not passed any such examination as aforesaid or has passed such examination after joining the service, the date of birth of the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation of his service, including eligibility for promotion,, superannuation, premature retirement of retirement benefits, and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of age in any circumstances whatsoever. Comments Rule 2 has been substituted by Karmik Department Notification No. 41/II/69-K-2, dated 7-6-80, with effect from 28-5-1974. 3. Overriding Effect.-These rules shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the relevant service rules or orders. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the 1974 Rules lay down the 'conditions' of service' of government servant. Since it lays down the condition of service, consequently under rule 40 of the 1976 Rules they would automatically apply to the officers and servant of the High Court as there is no specific rule in the 1976 Rules laying down in what manner the date of birth would be determined. 6. Since it lays down the condition of service, consequently under rule 40 of the 1976 Rules they would automatically apply to the officers and servant of the High Court as there is no specific rule in the 1976 Rules laying down in what manner the date of birth would be determined. 6. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the rules relating to determination of date of birth' can be called rules relating to the 'conditions of service' of an employee. The words 'condition of service' have not been defined either under 1976 Rules or 1974 Rules. In State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1989 SC 558 Hon. N. D. Ojha, J., (as he then was) delivering the opinion of the Court opined as follows ;- "In the normal course what falls within the purview of the term 'condition of service' may be classified as salary or wages including subsistance allowance during suspension, the periodical increments, pay-scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings." 7. The Honourable Supreme Court laid down what would amount to condition of service. This is not exhaustive but it is only illustrative. In any case even on the illustrations given by the Honourable Supreme Court in our opinion, the word 'superannuation necessarily implies the determination of the question as to what would be the date of superannuation. The date of superannuation can only be determined in, regard to the employee when his date of birth is first initially found out. In the circumstances even on the illustrations given by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath (supra), in our opinion, the determination of the date of birth would clearly come under the expression 'condition of service of an employee'. The learned Single Judge has relied on this very case of the Honourable Supreme Court We do not agree with the interpretation put on the decision by the learned Single Judge the Honourable Supreme Court did not lay down that the determination of the date of birth could not come within the purview of the term 'condition of service'. The learned Single Judge has relied on this very case of the Honourable Supreme Court We do not agree with the interpretation put on the decision by the learned Single Judge the Honourable Supreme Court did not lay down that the determination of the date of birth could not come within the purview of the term 'condition of service'. It only gave illustrations to indicate what possibly this term could mean but the examples given are not exhaustive the expression 'condition of service' has to be liberally construed. There cannot be any specific definition given to the expression. Appointments are of various kinds and conditions of service can differ from case to case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a very recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Hayagreev Sarma, 1990 Vol. 2 SCC 682. In this case the Honourable Supreme Court was considering the question of validity of A.P. Public Employment (Recording and Alteration of Date of Birth), Rules, 1984. The Honourable Supreme Court has clearly observed in this case that these rules prescribes conditions of service of the State employee. In view of the above we are clearly of the opinion that the question of determination of the date of birth would come within the definition of the term 'conditions of service' as envisaged in rule 40 of the 1976 Rules The view to the contrary taken by the learned Single Judge in our opinion, cannot be sustained. We consequently hold that the U. P. Recruitment to Service (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 are applicable to the officers and staff of the High Court governed by the; Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976. 9. Sri L. P. Nathani learned counsel appearing for SRI Rajendra Prasad Kukreti has further urged that he is entitled to promotion from the date of superannuation of Wasi Ullah Siddiqui and he was prevented from being promoted because of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by Wasi Ullah Siddiqui and consequently he should be deemed to have been promoted with effect from the date when SRI Wasi Ullah Siddiqui attained the age of superannuation. This is a matter for which the appellant Rajendra Prasad Kukreti may file a representation before the High Court. This is a matter for which the appellant Rajendra Prasad Kukreti may file a representation before the High Court. This question is not in issue before us, as we are considering only the appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeals are accordingly, allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1-11-1991 is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs of these appeals as well as the writ petition. Petition dismissed.