SHISHIR KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 9. 5. 2006 as well as order dated 5. 8. 2006 (Annexures 1 and 2 to writ petition ). Further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to treat petitioner in service up to the age of her superannuation on the basis of age mentioned in the service record. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents to pay her salary month to month as well as arrears from 9. 5. 2006 till the payment of current salary. ( 3 ) PETITIONERs husband was working as Fitter in the Corporation at Varanasi and died in harness on 2. 9. 1974 after completing 17 years of service. He was a permanent employee of the Corporation, therefore, petitioner was considered and appointed as part time water boy and thereafter she was given status of daily wager in the year 1979. Subsequently, petitioner was transferred to Account Office of respondent No. 2. Petitioner was directed to deposit various documents and in pursuance of same, petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 11. 9. 1981 issued by Senior Medical Superintendent S. S. P. G Hospital, Varanasi in which age of petitioner was recorded as 30 years and by appearance about 35 years. Since petitioner did not join any school, therefore, no education certificate was submitted. The said document was accepted by respondents and accordingly, date of birth of petitioner was recorded as 11. 9. 1949. Subsequently, appointment of petitioner was converted into peon. From 1981 till 9. 5. 2006, petitioner was never informed regarding any discrepancy or anything in date of birth and order impugned has been passed discharging petitioner from service treating date of birth of petitioner 11. 9. 1941 and it was alleged that petitioner has wrongly mentioned the said date and manipulated the same. Same allegations upon the clerk was made but petitioner being illiterate lady has nothing to do with the alleged manipulation by respondent. In pursuance of the notice, petitioner has submitted that her date of birth is 11. 9. 1949 as mentioned in the service record. Same allegations upon the clerk was made but petitioner being illiterate lady has nothing to do with the alleged manipulation by respondent. In pursuance of the notice, petitioner has submitted that her date of birth is 11. 9. 1949 as mentioned in the service record. Petitioner also requested to respondent No. 2 to provide copy of the part of service book in which date of birth of petitioner is alleged to be mentioned as 11. 9. 1941. Petitioner was not provided the said document and has been discharged arbitrary without providing any opportunity to petitioner. Hence, present writ petition. ( 4 ) IT has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that from 1981 till 2006, respondents have never informed regarding any manipulation alleged to be done by petitioner in connivance of any of the employee Further after receipt of show-cause notice petitioner has demanded copy of service book alleging date of birth of petitioner recorded as 11. 9. 1941. On the basis of direction issued, relevant certificate and regarding prove of age was submitted in the year 1981 and on that basis, date of birth of petitioner was recorded in the service record as 11. 9. 1949. Therefore, petitioner was entitled to continue on the said post till attaining the age of 60. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has relied upon Regulation 1976 which clearly states that date of birth recorded at the time of entrance in service if an employee is not High School or having any equivalent qualification, in that case, date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entrance of service will be treated to be final otherwise, date of birth recorded in the High School certificate is final and conclusive prove. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court reported in 2007 (7) ADJ 184 , Surya Lal Singh v. Superintending Engineer, vi Circle, PWD, Gorakhpur and others. Reliance has been placed upon para 7 and 8 of the said judgement. The same is being quoted below: 7. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had passed high School or equivalent examination. It is also admitted to the respondents that at the time of entry in service, the date of birth was recorded on the basis of medical examination conducted by the Chief Medical Officer. The same is being quoted below: 7. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had passed high School or equivalent examination. It is also admitted to the respondents that at the time of entry in service, the date of birth was recorded on the basis of medical examination conducted by the Chief Medical Officer. Rule 2 clearly provides that the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into the Government service shall be deemed to be correct for all purposes in relation to his service and that no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of such date of birth in the service records. Once when the Rule provides that the date of birth could not be changed at the instance of the employee or the employer, the same cannot also be done at the instance of a stranger. 8. In the present case, after enquiry and notice to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 had passed the earlier order dated 27. 11. 1999 rejecting the complaint of Amar Bahadur Singh, Advocate with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner, which was passed after compliance of the principles of natural justice. The subsequent order dated 20. 4. 2001 has been passed by the same respondent No. 2, but without any information or notice to the petitioner. Specific assertion that no notice or information had been given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order has been made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, which has not been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. As such, besides on merits the said order is also liable to be set aside on the ground of having been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. " ( 7 ) FURTHER reliance has been placed upon Division Bench judgement of this court reported in 2009 (9) ADJ 8 (DB), District Inspector of Schools, Varanasi v. Pradumn Kumar Gaur and reliance has been placed upon paras 4,5 and 6 of the said judgement. The same are being quoted below: "4. Mr. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the entry made in the High School Certificate is decisive and, if that is taken into consideration, the writ petitioner-respondent ought to have been superannuated on 30. 9. The same are being quoted below: "4. Mr. Pipersenia, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the entry made in the High School Certificate is decisive and, if that is taken into consideration, the writ petitioner-respondent ought to have been superannuated on 30. 9. 1994 and, therefore, direction of the learned single Judge, not to seek refund of the amount and treat the three years period for the pensionary benefits, is illegal. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in giving that direction. The writ petitioner-respondent continued in service till 30. 9. 1997 on the basis of the entry made in his service book. The service book is maintained by the employer. Not only this, the controversy in regard to the date of birth was raised after the retirement of the writ petitioner-respondent. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference in this appeal is made out. " ( 8 ) FURTHER reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner upon a constitutional Bench Judgement of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in air 1978 SC 851 stating therein that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. ( 9 ) AS in the counter affidavit an allegation has been made that petitioner has manipulated with connivance of an employee and instead of 11. 9. 1941 after cutting it has been made 11. 9. 1949. Various other things have been supplemented in counter affidavit, therefore, in that circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner submits that order impugned has to be judged by the reasons as mentioned and nothing can be substituted by way of affidavit. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, Sri Samir Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that on the basis of complaint, investigation was made by the Assistant Regional Manager, then it reveals that interpolations had been made in the date of birth of petitioner as recorded in her service book and 1941 has been changed by way of interpolation by making 1949. The correct date of birth of petitioner was later correctly taken as contained in the seniority list of the year 1990 in which her date of birth was recorded as 10. 9. 1941. Seeing the gravity of the matter, an enquiry was initiated in which various persons have been found guilty of involvement in committing the aforesaid misconduct and disciplinary proceeding is pending against them. The post of peon in the Corporation is a group D post and age of retirement for the said post is 60 years thus petitioner should have been retired on 30. 9. 2001. It was due to manipulation made by petitioner, she continued in service much after 30. 9. 2001 and therefore, a show cause notice was issued against petitioner for recovery of amount excess received by petitioner. A perusal of photocopy annexed to counter affidavit of the service book clearly reveals that 41 has been made 49. Earlier it was not in the knowledge but when seniority list was published then it was revealed that her date of birth is recorded as 11. 9. 1941. ( 11 ) SRI Samir Sharma has further submitted that Rules as cited by petitioner regarding date of birth is not applicable to petitioner being petitioner is an employee of UP. State Road Transport Corporation. There is a different Rule called as "uttar pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers)Service Regulations 1981. Sub Clause 2 and 3 of Clause 14 regarding date of birth recorded in the service book. The same is being quoted below: "clause 14- (2) A person shall at the time of his initial appointment produce certificate of having passed High School examination or any other equivalent or higher first public examination or, for reasons beyond his control, it is not possible to produce such certificate, he shall produce other proof of age to the satisfaction of the appointing authority. (3) Date of birth of an employee recorded in the certificate of examination, referred to in sub-regulation (2), or, where an employee has not passed any such examination, the date of birth or age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age as the case may be and no application or representation for correction of the date of birth or age shall be entertained in any circumstance whatever. " ( 12 ) SRI Shamir Sharma has also placed reliance upon Supreme Court judgement reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 , Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of bihar and others and reliance has been placed upon paras 53,57 and 58 of the said judgement. The same is being quoted below: "53. We now come to the question as to whether the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be recovered or not. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants cannot and should not be recovered, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. 57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a. particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by Courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by Courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, Courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. " ( 13 ) I have heard learned counsel for parties. As photocopy annexed to counter affidavit which was not clear, therefore, in that circumstances, the Corporation was directed to submit original record relating to service of petitioner. Sri Samir sharma, learned counsel appearing for Corporation has produced original service record as well as service book of petitioner. The Court has perused the original service book and from perusal of original service book, it is apparent that in the figure 11. 9. 1949 as well as in words, bottom to that in bracket 11th September, 1949 has been mentioned and bottom to that 11. 9. 1949 has again been written and that has been made dark. In the column of name and other things written, writing of other details as well as writing of date of birth appears to be the same. Style of making words appears to be made by same and one person, therefore, it cannot be imagined that date of birth of petitioner has been manipulated. It is admitted case of parties that on the basis of direction issued by respondents, petitioner has got medically examined herself in the year 1981 and prove of date of age was submitted and on that basis it has been entered in the service record. ( 14 ) IT is known to everybody that service book and other service records relating to an employee is always in the possession of the employer. Therefore, it cannot be imagined by any means that petitioner has manipulated because in other document petitioner has put his signature, the said writing does not tally with the writing of service book. ( 14 ) IT is known to everybody that service book and other service records relating to an employee is always in the possession of the employer. Therefore, it cannot be imagined by any means that petitioner has manipulated because in other document petitioner has put his signature, the said writing does not tally with the writing of service book. It appears that petitioner being illiterate lady anyhow makes her signature and she cannot write other things. In various places, date of birth of petitioner is recorded as 1949 and same has been verified by assistant Regional Manager on 19. 10. 2002. The verification of petitioners family has also been verified on the same day. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, in my opinion, it cannot be held by any means that petitioner has manipulated her date of birth as submitted by respondents. From perusal of regulation 14, Sub-Clause 3 it is clear that date of birth of an employee recorded in the certificate of examination or who has not passed any examination date of birth or age recorded in his service book at the time of entry in service shall be deemed to be correct date of birth or age as the case may be and no application or representation for correction of date of birth or age shall be entertained in any circumstances. Meaning thereby that date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entrance into service will be final date of birth unless and until proved otherwise. ( 16 ) AS regards, recovery amount is concerned, it is well settled in law that unless and until it is proved that amount received in lieu of service has been taken by misrepresentation or fraud on the part of employee then excess payment made to an employee cannot be recovered. In the present case, petitioner on the basis of date of birth recorded was permitted to continue and she actually rendered service, therefore, amount received by petitioner cannot be recovered. In the opinion of Court, respondents have utterly failed to proved that date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entry into service was manipulated by petitioner. Petitioner on the basis of date of birth recorded in the service record, cannot be retired treating his date of birth 1941. In the opinion of Court, respondents have utterly failed to proved that date of birth recorded in the service record at the time of entry into service was manipulated by petitioner. Petitioner on the basis of date of birth recorded in the service record, cannot be retired treating his date of birth 1941. Further the order passed by respondents is also liable to be quashed due to not providing any opportunity to petitioner before passing the order impugned. ( 17 ) IN view of aforesaid fact, writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 9. 5. 2006 as well as order dated 5. 8. 2006 (Annexures 1 and 2 to writ petition) are hereby quashed and date of birth of petitioner will be treated as 11. 9. 1949 and she will be treated to be in service up to 11. 9. 2009 as on that date she will complete 60 years of age according to the date of birth recorded and will also be entitled for all consequential arrears of salary including retiral benefits treating petitioner to be in service till 11. 9. 2009. ( 18 ) NO order as to costs. .