JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. – This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by State Government holding that petitioner is not entitled 10% retiral dues by Kanpur Development Authority ('KDA' in short). 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had joined as Grade-III, Clerk on 01.11.1963. Later on he was appointed as Stenographer on 17.05.1968 on which post he was confirmed on 30.04.1970. He has retired on 31.01.2008 after attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, he has been paid 90% retiral dues but 10% retiral dues were withheld in pursuance of decision of Assistant Secretary, Finance Controller and OSD, Personnel. It was decided by the Committee to refer the matter to State Government for taking decision. State Government had not decided the matter. 3. In the matter, writ petition was filed which was decided finally by this Court directing State Government to take decision within three months. 4. State Government has taken a decision to the effect that petitioner's date of birth has been shown as 02.01.1948 in place of 02.01.1942 by forgery and this is how he continued in service for an additional period of six years. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to remaining retiral dues. 5. It is stated in para 5 of the writ petition that date of birth mentioned in High School Marksheet is 02.01.1948. It is further stated that in Service-book of petitioner's date of birth is recorded as 02.01.1948 which has not been denied. In fact, Sri S.K. Singh, Joint Secretary in the note addressed to OSD(Personnel) had forwarded the service-book and has mentioned specifically that date of birth of petitioner is 02.01.1948 which is duly endorsed by the officers. 6. In view of this, it is apparent that date of birth of petitioner as recorded in service-book is 02.01.1948. Consequently, in the light of U.P. Recruitment Service (Determination of the date of Birth) Rules, 1974, the date of birth, entered in service-book had to be treated to be final for all the purposes and no request for its alteration can be entertained. 7. State Government in its order has also not said that date of birth mentioned in service-book is different from High School Marksheet. 7. State Government in its order has also not said that date of birth mentioned in service-book is different from High School Marksheet. The allegation is that forgery might have been done in the date of birth of petitioner i.e. petitioner could not have been appointed at the age of 15 years in the year, 1963 and no relaxation in age would have been sought by the Commissioner while making appointment on the post of Stenographer. 8. State Government or KDA has not made any enquiry that petitioner's date of birth as recorded in service-book or anywhere else is 02.01.1942 and not 02.01.1948. There is nothing on record to show that date of birth is 02.01.1942. 9. Petitioner has been retired in accordance with the date of birth, recorded in service-book, which has to be assumed to be correct in view of the Rules, 1974. 10. Consequently, petitioner is held entitled to all the retiral benefits treating his date of birth as 02.01.1948. If State Government had any doubt about the genuineness of entries of service-book, it could ordered enquiry, initiated prosecution and ordered for recovery. Nothing has been done by the State Government in the matter. Court cannot examine the appointment, made in the year, 1963. Respondents cannot withhold the amount of pension and such order is violation of CSR. Development Authority had continued to take work from petitioner and paid the salary. Petitioner cannot be punished now after retirement for something for which he alone may not be responsible. 11. Consequently, in my opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed. 12. Writ petition is allowed. Order dated 19.10.2010 is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the entire retiral dues of petitioner treating his date of birth 02.01.1948 and date of retirement as 31.01.2008.