Judgment S. Dikshit, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court to establish his identity. He has made the following prayers : (i) That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a writ. order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to impugn the adverse entry from the service record of the petitioner and grant the petitioner the higher grade of Rs. 2200-4000 for which he is qualified and entitled; (ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed; (iii) Cost of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The petitioner was appointed provisionally as Overseer vide order dated 23.12.71 and he joined the same on 25.1.72. A copy of the appointment order is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. This provisional appointment was subsequently approved by the U.P. Public Service Commission. He was thereafter confirmed vide order dated 27.3.81 and was placed at serial No. 159 of the confirmation list. The petitioner also passed the departmental professional examination of Junior Engineer which was held in October, 1985, therefore, he was absorbed in higher grade. The petitioner claims that he always worked to the satisfaction of his superior officers and no adverse entry or material was ever communicated to him till 1985. However, in the year 1986, the petitioner received a show cause notice in respect of some discrepancies detected to have been committed during some work conducted at Moradabad. Since the petitioner was never posted at Moradabad, he was surprised to receive this notice and he returned the same in original to the opposite parties informing them that since he never remained posted at Moradabad, there appears to be some mistake in directing this notice to him. The opposite parties, it seems, paid no heed to this communication of the petitioner, on the contrary vide letter dated 10.6.86 communicated the award of censure entry to him for the alleged irregularities committed by him at Moradabad. A copy of this communication is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The censure entry awarded to the petitioner reads as follows : ************* 3. A copy of this communication is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The censure entry awarded to the petitioner reads as follows : ************* 3. The petitioner being shocked by the said communication of award of adverse entry for committing irregularities at a place where he was never posted, he submitted a representation to the opposite parties stating that since he was never posted at Moradabad, there was no question of his committing any irregularity at that place. He, therefore, again represented to look into the matter and pass suitable orders but the opposite parties instead of rectifying the mistake continued to penalise the petitioner further by debaring him from being considered for promotion in higher grade for reason that adverse entry was awarded to him. Left with no option, the petitioner continued to send representation after representation and reminder after reminder but the opposite parties ignored all his representations and requests and maintained their stand that the petitioner is guilty of committing irregularities at Moradabad. 4. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition which came up for admission on 6.5.93 when following orders were passed : "Learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of opposite parties and prays for and is allowed two weeks time to seek instruction as to why the representations of the petitioner submitted before the opposite parties contained in Annexure Nos. 6 to 10 have not been considered so far specially for the reason that the petitioner is consistently submitting that he is different person than D.P. Singh regarding whom letter dated 10.6.1987 contained in Annexure No. 5 has been issued by one Girish Chandra Gupta, Engineer-in-Chief, U.P. P.W.D. making adverse entries. Due to mistaken identity the petitioner is debarred from his promotion and salary, etc., is not being paid due to some adverse entries awarded to another D.P. Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he was never posted at Moradabad till date. Due to mistaken identity the petitioner is debarred from his promotion and salary, etc., is not being paid due to some adverse entries awarded to another D.P. Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he was never posted at Moradabad till date. If the facts averred are correct, it is indeed very sorry state of affairs in that a wrong person is being punished and then his representations remain lying unattended List this case on 20th May, 1993." By passing the said order, this Court expected that the opposite parties shall soon examine the matter and communicate the correct facts before this Court but the opposite parties chose not to file any counter affidavit. This Court on 20.5.93 again passed an order calling upon the opposite parties to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders on the representations preferred by the petitioner failing which it was directed that the operation of the impugned order could be stayed. The writ petition was thereafter listed time and again but neither any counter affidavit was filed nor any instructions were given to the learned Standing Counsel. Left with no option, this Court, vide orders dated 21.8.95, passed the following orders : "Inspite of the Court's order dated 6.5.93 and 20.5.93, no return has been filed by learned Standing Counsel and no instructions have been received by him. List on 29th August, 1995, when Engineer-in-Chief of the department shall appear in person." 5. It is in these circumstances that the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D, Sri P.K. Singhal, appeared before this Court on 29.8.95 in person and admitted that this is a case of mistaken identity and the adverse entry has wrongly been awarded to the petitioner because he was never posted at Moradabad. Admitting that the impugned order dated 10.6.86 passed by the opposite parties does not relate to the petitioner who is son of one Newal Kishore Singh, he further informed the Court that it has been directed vide order dated 26.8.95 contained in Annexure 1 to the short counter affidavit filed by Engineer-in-Chief that the adverse entry be expunged from the service record of the petitioner and the petitioner should be immediately granted all such benefits to which he is entitled. 6. 6. This case is a glaring example of extreme callousness and apathy on the part of the State Government in dealing with its employees because the mistaken identity or the necessity to establish the identity is known in the field of criminal law but in service Jurisprudence, the question of mistaken identity is/should be unknown. The pre-requisite for employment with the State Government is furnishing of complete and detailed bio-data of the person who desires to seek employment. His name, parentage, date of birth, educational qualification and the documents and certificates in support thereof are duly recorded at the point of entry of the person in service. Such details/proof/certificates are entered in his service book which is regularly maintained and wherein all subsequent happenings like postings, transfers and promotions, adverse entries, etc. are duly recorded. Every incidence in service from the date one enters into it and till he superannuates or relinquishes or his relationship is severed with the employer is duly recorded in the service book. The department where he works maintains the service book with great care and caution and in these circumstances, it is impossible to believe that the identity of an employee is ever in doubt. In this case, the petitioner repeatedly requested the opposite parties that he is not the same D.P. Singh who was posted at Moradabad. There might be some other person with the same name in service but then his identity or birth mark shall be different. It did not require elaborate exercise on the part of the opposite parties to check up the fact as to whether the petitioner was ever posted at Moradabad or not, but then the opposite parties failed to discharge their obligation for more than two years and the petitioner suffered the agony of punishment for no fault of his. He carried the stigma of bad entry in his service record for all these years only for the reason of mistaken identity. Besides mental agony, he also suffered humiliation and loss of prestige before his colleagues, other employees and the family members. But for the intervention of this Court, one does not know what more was in store for him. It is indeed shocking and pricks the judicial conscience. Besides mental agony, he also suffered humiliation and loss of prestige before his colleagues, other employees and the family members. But for the intervention of this Court, one does not know what more was in store for him. It is indeed shocking and pricks the judicial conscience. No doubt the mistake has now been corrected at the intervention of Court but then the question is as to how to compensate the petitioner for the suffering and mental agony that he has undergone for all these years for no fault of his. No doubt the opposite parties, after more than two years, have expunged the adverse remark from his character roll and have also granted him all the benefits to which he is entitled in law but there is no reason as to why he should not be compensated at least in monetary terms for being deprived of his vested rights which remained suspended for two years admittedly for the fault and extreme callousness on the part of the opposite parties. Fixing of individual responsibility for this inaction which has resulted into so much of agony and mental torture to the petitioner, is undoubtedly the duty and obligation of the State Government or the Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D., and not that of this Court. It is, however, expected from the State Government that it would ensure that such incidents are not repeated in future and the guilty officer/official is duly reprimanded. Since all the reliefs claimed in the writ petition have already been granted to the petitioner by the opposite parties vide orders dated 26.8.95, the question of compensating the petitioner suitably in terms of money remains to be decided. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I impose quantified cost of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) on the State Government to be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of with these directions.