JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the appellant. 2. The plaintiff appellant Vishwanath (since deceased) filed suit No. 1341 of 1987 for injunction in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi claiming that his date of birth is 11.12.1938 and that he has wrongly been superannuated from the post of chowkidar on 31.1.1988 on attaining the age of 60 years. The Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellant on 3.1.1988, against which defendant respondent filed Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1988 before IInd Additional District Judge, Varanasi and also filed their written statement before Court in the suit. 3. It appears that dispute before the Court was whether date of birth of the appellant is 1.2.1928 as claimed by Kashi Hindu University-defendant or 11.12.1938 as claimed by the plaintiff appellant Vishwanath (since deceased) and others. The Court below framed 12 issues in the suit, out of which issue Nos. 1, 2 and 9 are relevant for the purposes of this case, which are as under : ^^1- D;k oknh dh tUefrfFk foofo|ky; ds fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vodkk izkIr djus ds fufeRr fnukad 1-12-1938 ekuh tk;sxh ;k 1-2-28 ekuh tk;sxh] nksuksa nkk esa izHkko\ 2- D;k oknh fdlh vurks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 9- D;k fooukFk ¼e`r oknh½ dh tUe frfFk 11-12-38 gS\** 4. The Court below considered case of the parties and on the basis of admitted fact by the plaintiff appellant in his cross examination that he joined Kashi Hindu University in the year 1954 when he was admittedly 16 years of age and that he had filed suit after four years of his retirement and that he has no other document except one establishment budget in which his date of birth was shown to be of the year 1938, the Court held that according to the Note appended to Establishment budget, the date of birth mentioned in the said paper/establishment budget is not determinative and shall not confer any right on the person claiming right on its basis. The relevant extract of the judgment in this regard is as under : ^^oknh }kjk vius nkos dks lkfcr djus ds fy, eq[; vk/kkj vius }kjk izLrqr vfHkys[kh; lk{; esa LVScfylesUV ctV esa ;g fy;k gS fd Lo;a foofo|ky; }kjk fuxZr bl izi= ij oknh dh tUefrfFk 1938 vafdr gS blds vfrfjDr oknh dh vksj ls udy jftLVj iSnkbZl Fkkuk nksgfu;k ekStk danok nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftldk fgUnh rjtqek esa oknh }kjk ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd bl izi= ds voyksdu ls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd oknh dh iSnkbk 1-12-1938 gSA bl lEcU/k esa loZFkk egRoiw.kZ rF; ;g gS fd oknh }kjk LVScfylesUV ctV esa viuk tUefrfFk 1938 vafdr gksuk crk;k gS fdUrq izfroknh i{k }kjk oknh ds bl vk/kkj dks izu&fpUgr fd;k x;k gS vkSj dFku fd;k x;k gS fd LVScfylesUV ctV esa fdlh O;fDr dks fof/kd izkfLFkfr vFkok vfèkdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gS rFkk Lo;a LVScfylesUV ctV ds uksV esa ;g rF; vafdr gS fd bl izi= ds vk/kkj ij dksbZ fup;kRed vFkok fof/kd vo/kkj.k dk;e ugha dh tk ldrh gSA bl izdkj izfroknh us oknh ds bl vk/kkj dk [k.Mu fd;k gS vkSj dFku fd;k gS fd LVScfylesUV ctV esa dksbZ izfof"V oknh dks dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha iznku djrk gSA vius izfr ijh{kk esa oknh us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd eSa lu~ 1954 ls dkkh fgUnw foofo|ky; esa dk;Z dj jgk gwWa rFkk mldh tUefrfFk 1-12-38 gSA rFkk foofoky; ds ctV ds vkèkkj ij gS blds vfrfjDr bl rF; dh tkudkjh odhy lkgc }kjk fudkys x;s ,d dkxt ds vk/kkj ij Kkr gqvk gS fd blds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ vk/kkj eq>s vius tUefnu dh frfFk 1938 gksus dk ugha gSA - - - - - - - - - 3&4 lky ckn gesa ekywe gqvk fd esjh tUefrfFk 1 Qjojh 38 gSA rRipkr eSaus dqN ugha fd;k D;ksafd gesa bldh t:jr ugha FkhA blds vfrfjDr oknh esa i`"B 9 ij viuh izfr ijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd 1972&73 esa ;qfuoflZVh ctV esa esjh tUefrfFk vafdr dh x;h FkhA og eSaus ugha ntZ djk;h Fkh ;g dSls ntZ gks x;k gesa ugha irk eSaus tUe frfFk dgh ckcr dk;Zdkfj.kh ifj"kn esa dksbZ vihy ugha fd;k rFkk i`"B 10 ij iqu% oknh dFku djrk fd eSaus tc ;qfuoflZVh TokbZu fd;k rks esjh voLFkk 15&16 lky jgh gksxhA izfrfoknh dh vksj ls eq[; :i ls ;g vkifRr dh x;h gS fd oknh us vius dks o"kZ 1954 esa ch-,p-;w- esa lsokjr gksuk dgk gS rFkk viuh tUefrfFk 1938 gksus dh ?kks"k.kk gsrq ;kfpr fd;k gSA Li"V gS fd ;fn ;g eku Hkh fy;k tk;s fd oknh dh tUefrfFk 1938 gS rks og 1954 esa ch0,p0;w0 esa dSls TokbZu dj ldrk gS D;ksafd ml le; ?kks"k.kk ds vuqlkj oknh dh vk;q ek= 16 o"kZ gksxh rFkk cukjl fgUnw foofo|ky; dsUnzh; foofo|ky; gSA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ;g rF; Hkh fofnr gksrk gS fd oknh }kjk thouchek djk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa izfroknh i{k ls i=kpkj fd;k Fkk ftlls Li"V gS fd mls tUefrfFk ekyqe gks lds blds izR;qRrj esa jftLVj vkfQl ls oknh dks fnukad 7-6-61 dks ;g lwpuk izsf"kr dh x;h fd mldh tUefrfFk 1-2-1928 gS Li"V gS fd bl izi= dks izkIr djus ds ipkr oknh dks fo’o fo|ky; ds fjdkMZ esa viuh vafdr tUefrfFk dh Li"V lwpuk gks x;h Fkh fdUrq oknh us vius lsokfuo`fRr ds dqN o"kZ iwoZ bl izuxr rF; dks izLrqr okn ds ek/;e ls mBk;k tc fd cukjl fgUnw foofo|ky; fof/k }kjk LFkkfir laLFkk gS ftldh viuh fu;ekoyh o lafof/k gksrh gS rFkk foofo|ky; dh lafof/k ds voyksdu ls ;g rF; Hkh Li"V gS fd blesa Li"V izkfo/kku gS fd ;fn dksbZ dkfeZd laLfkk ds fdlh fu.kZ; ls fo{kqC/k gksrk gS rks ;g foofo|ky; dh dk;Zdkfj.kh esa vius i{k dks izLrqr dj ldrk gS rnqijkUr cukjl fgUnw ;wfufoflZVh ds vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr foofo|ky; ds foftVj ds le{k viuk izfrosnu izLrqr dj ldrk gS fdUrq oknh }kjk bl ckcr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;h gS oknh dk ;g vkpj.k] tc Lo;a mls 1961 esa gh foofo|ky; ds fjdkMZ }kjk vius tUefrfFk 1928 dh ckcr lwpuk izkIr gks x;h Fkh] mlds }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh u fd;k tkuk oknh ds nkok dks lafnX/k cukrk gS D;ksafd 1961 ds i’pkr oknh ds ikl ;g i;kZIr volj Fkk fd og foofo|ky; ls viuh tUefrfFk nq:Lr djus gsrq dk;Zokgh dj ldrk Fkk vkSj oknh }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh u fd;k tkuk vkSj rRipkr brus yEcs vUrjky ds ckn izLrqr okn ;ksftr cjuk ,d gn rd foofo|ky; ds }kjk tkjh fu;qfDr i= esa vafdr tUefrfFk dks Lohdkj gksuk gh nfkZr djrk gSA** 5. From the above, the Court found that declaration as given by the appellant was incorrect as a minor cannot be given service by an establishment which is recognized by the central government and governed by applicable service rules. The Court below has further noted the fact that plaintiff appellant had been informed about his date of birth to be of the year 1928 as far back as on 7.6.1961 when he was required to give his date of birth for the purposes of Life Insurance. But he at that stage did not dispute his date of birth as 1.2.1928 but has raised this dispute after four years of his retirement. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the Court below held that claim of the appellant cannot be accepted that his date of birth is of 1938 and he joined Kashi Hindu University in 1954 as according to his own version he would 16 years of age in 1954 and could not have been given appointment in an establishment recognized by the central government and governed by relevant service rules. 6. As regards budget statement is concerned, it has been clearly noted therein that date of birth of any employee (1938 of the appellant in the present case), will not give him any legal right to claim any benefit on that basis. Thus, the Court below has recorded a specific finding of fact that date of birth of the appellant is not of 1938 and has decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 9 against the appellant. While deciding issue No. 2, the Court held that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. 7. In view of admitted facts and evidence of the appellant himself, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that appellant’s date of birth is 1.2.1928 and not 11.12.1938 as claimed by him. If date of birth is incorrectly mentioned in the establishment budget that will not give a right to claim any benefit for the Note appended to it provides so. Moreover, the appellant has accepted his date of birth as 1.2.1928 when he was informed of the same in the year 1961 but he chose to challenge the same after four years of his retirement. 8. Moreover, the appellant has accepted his date of birth as 1.2.1928 when he was informed of the same in the year 1961 but he chose to challenge the same after four years of his retirement. 8. After hearing the submissions and perusing the impugned judgments, in the opinion of this Court, the findings and conclusions drawn by the Courts below on the basis of evidence produced before it, do not suffer from any infirmity and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————