A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS through this appeal seek to challenge the judgment and order dated April 15, 1998 passed by learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 29789 of 1995. Sharda Prasad v. State of U. P. and others quashing order dated 11. 10. 1995 (Annexure-1 to the petition) passed by respondent No. 1/joint Director. Printing and Stationery. U. P. . Allahabad. Facts of the case are : petitioner possessed no educational qualification when he got employment on dally wages against a Class IV post as Assistant Binder in a Unit of Government Printing and Stationery, U. P. , Allahabad on 17. 4. 1960. Admittedly, he is a Government employee. His services are governed by U. P. Class IV Employees Rules, 1975. His age of superannuation is 58 years which is to be determined with reference to the date of birth mentioned in his service book as provided under U. P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, as amended vide Rule 1980 for short called the Rules. ( 2 ) RELEVANT rule 2 of the Rules is reproduced : "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 or 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 to his service. Including eligibility for promotion, superannuation, premature retirement benefits. and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date or age in any circumstances whatsoever. " According to this rule, date of birth mentioned in service book of a Government employee at the time of entering into service shall be deemed to be correct date of birth, and it shall remain the same (even if he subsequently passes High School or equivalent examination during service ). ( 3 ) IN the present case, respondent No. 1/joint Director passed order dated 11. 10. 1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition and received by the petitioner on 10. 12. ( 3 ) IN the present case, respondent No. 1/joint Director passed order dated 11. 10. 1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition and received by the petitioner on 10. 12. 1995) mentioning that the petitioners date of birth in his character roll in the "personal file is shown as 22. 8. 1936 which is as per date in the horoscope given by him. But in his service book, it is 5. 3. 1944. According to service record, he had to retire on 31. 8. 1994 but it has not been done. Consequently, he ordered that petitioner shall retire with immediate effect. 11. 10. 1995. He further directed for deduction of all sums paid to the petitioner w. e. f. 31. 8. 1994 till date from gratuity, etc. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, Sharda Prasad filed Writ Petition No. 29897 of 1997 giving rise to this appeal against the impugned order dated 11. 10. 1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ). ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his date of birth in his service book is 5. 3. 1944 which is the correct date of birth. He contends that the date of birth mentioned elsewhere in any other service record is not relevant and that it could not be altered at the fag end of his service. In para 9 of the petition, it is stated that petitioner never submitted any document nor he was ever required to submit any document in proof of his date of birth. In paragraphs 19 to 21 of the petition. It is also stated that the fact of janam Kundli mentioned in the impugned order was a new fact which he came to know for the first time from the impugned order only. ( 6 ) A learned single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 15th April, 1998, relying upon aforequoted Rule 2 holding that entry of date of birth in service book is conclusive and deemed to be correct. ( 7 ) HEARD counsels for the parties at length. ( 6 ) A learned single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 15th April, 1998, relying upon aforequoted Rule 2 holding that entry of date of birth in service book is conclusive and deemed to be correct. ( 7 ) HEARD counsels for the parties at length. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the appellants, the learned standing counsel submits that the learned single Judge did not refer to other aspects ; namely janam Kundli which was submitted by the petitioner himself and that the entry made in the service book unauthorisedly or ignorantly by accidental slip, which was not in consonance with other service record, was merely rectified. Learned single Judge did not appreciate that an entry arising out of purely an accidental slip or omission or actually blanks filled up unauthorisedly through forgery or interpolation in the service record (not supported from other material or entry on record) if up-dated. It will not amount to correction of such a nature which effects variance of Inter-se rights and obligations or mutual status of the parties by altering actual and correct existing facts ; i. e. , if the correction is to avoid apparent discrepancy, distortion of facts or to check misrepresentation/concealment of correct facts caused by fraud or interpolation, apparent accidental slip or like cause and hence requiring one to set the records in order to bring it in line with other service record then it is not alteration of a nature covered by the word correction used in Rule 2 of the Rules. Harmless "up dating and alteration which does not effect the natural facts and borne out from other relevant records and/or state of affairs) is not contemplated by the expression "correction" in the rules. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the appellants, learned standing counsel cited following cases : 1. Shree Nath Line Man v. Executive Engineer. H. Q. Electricity Urban Distribution Circle, U. P. State Electricity Board. Allahabad, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1187 (Para 10) : the learned single Judge observed : the second question that falls for consideration is whether the rules invoked by the respondent about a date of birth once recorded in the service record not being amenable to change on any ground whatsoever. H. Q. Electricity Urban Distribution Circle, U. P. State Electricity Board. Allahabad, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1187 (Para 10) : the learned single Judge observed : the second question that falls for consideration is whether the rules invoked by the respondent about a date of birth once recorded in the service record not being amenable to change on any ground whatsoever. Before this rule is invoked by the respondent, it has to satisfy the Court that it was the petitioner who had declared his age before the erstwhile company and the company has not recorded the date of birth of its own. The respondent has only carried forward the entry of date of birth from the record of the company, which was taken over by it. What was the basis for the company to record the date of birth the petitioner was correctly recorded by the company or not is not known. Therefore, in the absence of any proof in this regard, the rule invoked by the respondent cannot be allowed to operate in the present case. The determination of date of birth may involve collection of evidence and it may not be possible for the High Court to record evidence with regard to the disputed fact, but it can certainly issue direction about the method and manner in which controversy about the date of birth can be settled. There are conceivable situation where the date of birth recorded is incorrect for many reasons. It may be due to inadvertence, it may be due to mistake in the record and so on and so forth. If the rule contained in Annexure-3 relied upon by the respondent is invoked, even a clerical mistake in the date of birth cannot be corrected. Therefore, the rule has to be interpreted reasonably so as to make it meaningful to serve the cause of Justice. The rigid interpretation placed on the rule by the respondent will defeat the object of the rule and the law relating to the service matters. Therefore, the rule invoked by the respondent in the present case making the date of birth, once recorded, unalterable can be relied upon only in those cases where the date of birth is correctly recorded and where there is no dispute about the actual date of birth. 2. Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain. (1997) 1 SCC 373 . Therefore, the rule invoked by the respondent in the present case making the date of birth, once recorded, unalterable can be relied upon only in those cases where the date of birth is correctly recorded and where there is no dispute about the actual date of birth. 2. Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain. (1997) 1 SCC 373 . Apex Court observed that a statute has to be read as a whole to find out the real intention of the Legislature, in para 15 of the judgment. Supreme Court, while enunciating principle of construction of statutory provision, held that courts have also to keep in mind that an interpretation which reduces one of the provisions as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber" is not harmonious construction and not to be preferred. 3. Mohan Singh and others v. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1997) 9 SCC 132 (para 17 ). Supreme Court observed : "that the scope and language of the statute and consideration of policy at times may, however, create exception showing that the Legislature did not intend a remedy (generality) to be exclusive. Words are the skin of the language. The language is the medium of expressing the intention and the object that particular provision or the Act seeks to achieve. Regard must be had to the context, subject-matter and object of the statutory provisions in question in determining whether the same is mandatory or directory. . . . . It is the duty of the Court to try to get at the real intention of the Legislature by carefully analysing the whole scope of the statute or section or a phrase under consideration. " ( 10 ) THE appellants argue that employee cannot take advantage both at the time of entry in service and subsequently at the time of retirement relying upon an incorrect entry in the service book completely ignoring other record. The contention is that the petitioner could not get entry in a Government service if the date of birth 5. 3. 1944, recorded in his service book, is taken to be correct, since according to this date of birth. he was then minor (about 15 1/2 years ). If the date of birth 22. 8. The contention is that the petitioner could not get entry in a Government service if the date of birth 5. 3. 1944, recorded in his service book, is taken to be correct, since according to this date of birth. he was then minor (about 15 1/2 years ). If the date of birth 22. 8. 1936 appearing in his character roll and other services record including his Janam kundli is taken as correct--he was about 25 years of age at the time of entering in service. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of Sharda Prasad (Petitioner-respondent), in reply, submitted as follows : "the rules admit of no exception and the employer cannot be permitted to ignore the date of birth recorded in the service book and the date of birth mentioned in other service records of the petitioner is of no consequence ; that the petitioner could not be retired without giving notice and an opportunity of hearing while relying upon the said Janam Kundli, which he did not supply and was not aware of it before the impugned order was passed. Lastly, he should not be compelled to pay back the emoluments received by him in lieu of working from 31. 8. 1994 to 11. 10. 1995 this direction is wholly illegal, unwarranted and not sustainable in law, that his post retiral benefits have been illegally detained, he is entitled to receive, post retiral pensionary benefits including gratuity etc. , with interest as contemplated under Government Order dated 30th November, 1984. 13th April, 1983 and 12th September, 1983, copies of which have been placed before the Court. " ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent referred to the following decisions : 1. Union of India v. Ram Suia Sharma. 1996 SCC (Lands) 605. It was a case, which came up before the Court after the case was decided by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court in its brief judgment observed that correction of date of birth cannot be allowed at a belated stage, It was not a case of variance in the dates of birth recorded in service record vis-a-vis service book. 2. Prof. Mohd. Zameeruddin Siddiqui v. Executive Council Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and another, 1996 (1) ESC 289 (All) (Paras 25 and 27 ). 2. Prof. Mohd. Zameeruddin Siddiqui v. Executive Council Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and another, 1996 (1) ESC 289 (All) (Paras 25 and 27 ). A Division Bench of this Court in para 25 observed "the date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of recruitment in the service is final and the same cannot be changed, particularly at the time of retirement. . . . . ". In para 27, the Bench observed to the effect that if an employee has enjoyed a particular privilege and status on the basis of certain facts recorded at the time of entry tn service, he shall not be entitled to get the same changed. This Division Bench judgment is relevant to the extent it held that an employee cannot be allowed to take advantage of Joining service by representing one to be major at the time of entering in service and thereafter escape the consequence and the disadvantages flowing from these very facts. 3. Union of India and others v. Kantilal Hematram Pandya. 1995 SCC (Lands) 593 (para 9 ). 4. Collector of Madras and another v. K. Rajamanickam, 1995 SCC (Lands) 414. In these cases, Court dealt with entirely different set of facts and held that the matter in which controversy was at rest till the employee reached the age of superannuation should not be allowed, on the eve of his retirement, to set up the same and opting for altering the entry after awakening from deep slumber. In this case Court did not have the opportunity to interpret present Rule, 1974 and the interpretation defining extent and scope of the word "correction"--i. e. , one which alters a position and the other where there is no alteration as such. 5. Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board v. E. Atchanna and others. 1996 SCC (Lands) 526. Supreme Court held that directions though by interim orders at interlocutory stage are likely to cause serious prejudice to a party and should not be normally given particularly when that party himself is guilty of having failed to make claim within reasonable time before the concerned authority. The case is distinguishable on facts. 6. R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (Pointing and Publication) Income-tax and another, 1995 scc (Lands) 13, and 7. Smt. Aruna Dhose v. Slate of U. P. and another, 1996 (2) LBESR 571 . The case is distinguishable on facts. 6. R. Kapur v. Director of Inspection (Pointing and Publication) Income-tax and another, 1995 scc (Lands) 13, and 7. Smt. Aruna Dhose v. Slate of U. P. and another, 1996 (2) LBESR 571 . Referred by respondent in support of his plea for claim of interest on illegally withheld salary, pension and gratuity. ( 13 ) WITHOUT going into the details of the Government Orders providing for payment of gratuity, post retiral benefit and liability to pay interest, we wish to leave the question of payment of interest to be considered by the concerned authority to decide when it is claimed in future. No grievance and relevant pleading on the point find mention in the writ petition. ( 14 ) ON perusing the original service record, on the Joint request made at the Bar following factual position emerges : 1. Original Service book (Service Roll.--Bears thumb and finger impression of the concerned employee. Initially entries made in black ink. However, the date of birth, i. e. , 5. 3. 1944, has been made in entirely different ink and handwriting subsequently. Relevant entry in question appears to be not made while initially preparing the service book at the time of entry in service. As per said service roll, Sharda Prasad entered in service on 1. 8. 1959. Other entries made elsewhere in the service record show that they were not made at the time of filling up forms and while initial preparation of the records. 2. Service book.--Date of birth recorded as 5. 3. 1944 and date of appointment as 1. 8. 1976. It is evident that it is not the service book prepared at the time of entry in service. 3. Pass book and G. P. Fund account.--Entries relating to the date of birth as 5. 3. 1944 : date of joining of the service as 1. 8. 1959, and marks of identification have been apparently not made at the time of Joining as they are in different ink as compared to the entries on the top of the pass book (regarding nominee of the employee) and account number which are in distinct black ink. 4. Character Roll.--Shows that petitioner was appointed temporarily with effect from 1. 8. 1959. The date of birth. in the character roll, is 22nd August, 1936 (on the basis of horoscope), but in different ink. 4. Character Roll.--Shows that petitioner was appointed temporarily with effect from 1. 8. 1959. The date of birth. in the character roll, is 22nd August, 1936 (on the basis of horoscope), but in different ink. It is explained, with the help of original documents on record, that an enquiry was made through police and horoscope submitted by the employee. 5. Printed application form.--The date of birth shown as 22. 8. 1936 (in different ink ). Office order on 845 dated 23. 10. 1958 shows that Sharda Prasad, dally paid coolie was absorbed as temporary coolie in the temporary establishment up to March 31. 1959. There are other documents also indicating that he was inducted in service in the year 1958-1959. 6. Form of the verification of nomination.-- Contained along with letter dated 6. 4. 1960 signed and sent by the Superintendent. Printing and Stationery, U. P. Lucknow to the C. 1. P. U. P. Lucknow for verifica tion of the contents of the nomination form of verification roll indicates date of birth as 22. 8. 1936. 7. Original Horoscope.--In the original record purports to have been verified by Ram Avtar father of the employee in question. The said horoscope also mentions date of birth as 22. 8. 1936. It is not clear as to how the original horoscope came in possession of the appellants. 8. Copy of the certificate.--Bearing No. 838 (kept along with original service book No. B1298), the said certificate signed by Head of the Department on 18. 2. 1997 shows that the eldest son of the employee (Kanhaiya Lal) is shown was then aged about 20 years. If the eldest son of the employee in question was 20 years of age in the year 1977, it shows that he was born in the year 1957. This would mean that eldest son Kanhaiya Lal was born to the employee in question, if his correct date of birth is of 1944, when he was hardly 13 years of age. ( 15 ) THERE is no doubt that the maintenance of original record is by no standard satisfactory. Ordinarily, this Court would have required the matter to be decided afresh after giving opportunity to the concerned employee with respect to authenticity of the various entries in his service record and particularly the horoscope. ( 16 ) IN the present case, petitioner is, however, not working since after 12. 10. 1995. Ordinarily, this Court would have required the matter to be decided afresh after giving opportunity to the concerned employee with respect to authenticity of the various entries in his service record and particularly the horoscope. ( 16 ) IN the present case, petitioner is, however, not working since after 12. 10. 1995. It is well-settled that an employee cannot get full wages automatically as it involves loss of public money. An employee must prove that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere, which will require adjudication of facts. This Court should not, therefore, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, Constitution of India award full back wages for the past, particularly when there is no pleading or material on record to show that he was not gainfully employed. This Court cannot direct the appellants to pay full salary for the period he has not worked. See 1998 (78) FLR 546 (SC), AIR 1980 SC 840 (Paras 18 and 19) and 1997 (29) ALR 362. ( 17 ) THERE are other circumstances also against the petitioner-respondent. There is material on the original record to show that alleged date of birth (5. 3. 1944) of the petitioner does not fit in well with other aspects of the case. Namely, petitioner could not get entry in service in 1958 as, according to this date of birth, he was hardly 14/15 years of age at that time. Age of his eldest son, in one document has been shown by him as about 20 years in the year 1977 which does not appear to be natural. If the petitioners correct date of birth, as now claimed by him, is 5. 3. 1944, then he was only 13 years of age when he was blessed with his said eldest son. This attending circumstance also belles petitioners claim of his correct date of birth being 5. 3. 1944. ( 18 ) IN the above backdrop, one will appreciate that the rules have to be interpreted pragmatically and which furthers the cause of justice, We, therefore, lean in favour of an interpretation which does not prohibit concerned authority from carrying out corrections purely accidental and clerical in nature which neither tend to alter the status and corresponding obligations between the parties. In other words, if the correction is only to remove an obvious and apparent accidental mistake/slip, apparent absurdity as a consequence of interpolation or forgery in record (which is required to straighten the records to bring in line with other material on record), then it is not a change by correction of a nature which in real sense brings change in long settled factual position otherwise proved on record. ( 19 ) THE above reasoning finds support from the observation made in the case of Shree Nath (supra), wherein Court held that an employee cannot have his say to his advantage all the time ; namely, at the time of entry as well as at the time of reaching age of superannuation. ( 20 ) IN the case of Shri Bakshi Ram and others v. Shri Brij Lal, JT 1994 (5) SC 422. Apex Court held that in equity a person seeking benefit of certain bundle of facts which permitted a transaction (namely entry in service) cannot be subsequently permitted to escape from the disadvantage flowing from same transaction and the affects, if any, flowing from the same. Equity does not permit a party to take stand--Heads I win, tails you loose. Law, which is nothing but logic, has to promote justice and ensure that no party is enriched at the cost of other on technicalities of law by taking unfair stand. Similar view taken by learned single Judge in Sriram v. State of U. P. and others, (1997) (I) ESC 274 (All) (Para 16 ). ( 21 ) FOR the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 15. 4. 1998 passed by learned single Judge deserve to be set aside in part. Writ petition stands dismissed to the extent petitioner-respondent sought relief for not to retire the petitioner up to 5. 3. 2002. The order dated 11. 10. 1995 passed by respondent No. 1 seeking to retire the petitioner on 11. 10. 1995 is maintained. Writ petition, however, succeeds Jn part and the impugned order dated 11. 10. 1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is set aside to the extent it gave direction to the respondents to deduct amount paid as salary, etc. for the period 31. 8. 1994 to 11. 10. 1995. Appellant-respondents are directed not to recover/deduct any amount paid to the petitioner in lieu of his working during 31. 10. 1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is set aside to the extent it gave direction to the respondents to deduct amount paid as salary, etc. for the period 31. 8. 1994 to 11. 10. 1995. Appellant-respondents are directed not to recover/deduct any amount paid to the petitioner in lieu of his working during 31. 8. 1994 to 11. 10. 1995. If any amount is withheld for this period or towards leave-encashment, gratuity, post retiral benefit, etc. , the same shall be paid (with interest on delayed payments as per relevant Government orders on the subject) forthwith not beyond three months of filing certified copy of this Judgment before concerned authorities. .