JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 24.8.2007, 8.5.2013 and 1.8.2013 and has further prayed for direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate him on the post of Constable, treating him continuous in service and to pay all the arrears of salary from the date of his dismissal with all consequential benefits. 3. It appears from the record that the petitioner applied for and was selected on the post of Constable in Civil Police. He joined his duties on 5.12.2006 and completed the training. Thereafter, he was allotted District J.P. Nagar. At the time of filling up the application form, he had mentioned his date of birth as 8.8.1986 and filed the marksheet and certificate of High School Examination, 2004. The aforesaid certificate was sent for verification to the Regional Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Regional Office, Meerut, who vide letter dated 21.8.2007 informed at serial No. 2 that the date of birth of the petitioner was found forged and instead of 8.5.1986, it was recorded as 8.8.1986. By the impugned order dated 24.8.2007 the Superintendent of Police, Jyotiba Phule Nagar dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order, the petitioner filed the departmental appeal before the the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad on 13.7.2009, which was dismissed on 8.5.2013. Thereafter the petitioner filed the departmental revision before the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly on 26.5.2013. The revision was also dismissed on 1.8.2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of recruitment in the year 2006, the petitioner disclosed his date of birth as 8.8.1986, and in the application form, the petitioner mentioned his date of birth as 8.8.1986, as such there is no concealment of fact on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner passed his Class-V and Class-VIII examinations from Sri Omgiri Parokari Prathamik Khurdiya Vidhyalaya, District Aligarh, in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 8.8.1986. He also passed his High School Examination from U.P. High School and Intermediate Board in the year 2004 in which his date of birth is recorded as 8.8.1986. The petitioner passed his Class-V and Class-VIII examinations from Sri Omgiri Parokari Prathamik Khurdiya Vidhyalaya, District Aligarh, in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 8.8.1986. He also passed his High School Examination from U.P. High School and Intermediate Board in the year 2004 in which his date of birth is recorded as 8.8.1986. Due to computer mistake the incorrect date of birth had been mentioned in the High School certificate of the petitioner. The Principal of Sri Gandhi Inter College sent a letter to the Secretary, U.P. High School and Intermediate Board for correction of his date of birth and after following the proper procedure, the Board of High School and Intermediate corrected the date of birth of the petitioner vide order dated 22.2.2013 and the date of birth of the petitioner has been corrected as 8.8.1986 and fresh marksheet and certificate have been issued to him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 576 of 2010 (Amir Khan v. State of UP and others) decided on 8.6.2010. The order dated 8.6.2010 is reproduced herein below : “Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel. The appellant had applied for selection on the post of constable on 26.9.2006 by submitting application alongwith his marks-sheet. It appears that from the verification, it was found that the date of birth mentioned in the marks-sheet is incorrect. However, upon production of the original marks-sheet, it was found that upon an application made by the appellant, the date of birth of the appellant was corrected in the marks-sheet by the Board itself. The corrected marks-sheet has been filed as annexure-6 to the appeal. This matter was placed before the learned Single Judge, who had also perused the record and has come to the conclusion that the board has issued a corrected marks-sheet but has gone to hold that the correction at this belated stage was not permissible. Since the board has itself issued the corrected marks-sheet, we are of the view that the marks-sheet was issued by the board should be taken into consideration unless it is proved that the corrected marks-sheet is a forged document. In this view of the matter, the special appeal is allowed. Since the board has itself issued the corrected marks-sheet, we are of the view that the marks-sheet was issued by the board should be taken into consideration unless it is proved that the corrected marks-sheet is a forged document. In this view of the matter, the special appeal is allowed. The termination order dated 8.8.2007 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if the petitioner is reinstated, he will not claim arrears of his salary. 7. In view of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service immediately and on the principle of ‘no work and no pay’, he would not be entitled for any salary from the date of dismissal upto reinstatement. However, the petitioner is entitled for all notional benefits.