Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 728 (ALL)

Pattu Singh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2017-03-08

DILIP B.BHOSALE, YASHWANT VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 78146 of 2017 Heard Mr. H K Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant prays for condoning the 87 days' delay caused in filing the special appeal. The respondents have not filed any reply opposing the prayer till today. In view thereof and for the reasons stated in the application and in the affidavit filed in support thereof, the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. Order on Special Appeal. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 9.11.2016 whereby the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed. By way of the writ petition, the appellant challenged the order dated 19.5.2016, whereby he was retired from service treating his date of birth as 5.9.1952. He also challenged the order of rejection of his claim dated 19.5.2016. According to the appellant his correct date of birth is 31.12.1969 and in support thereof he relied upon certain documents which were also placed before the learned Single Judge. Counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions which were also urged before the learned Single Judge. We have perused the order passed by learned Single Judge very carefully. The relevant observations in the order read thus: "From a careful perusal of the order dated 19.5.2016 it is apparent that the petitioner at the time of submission of joining report in the office of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Ghazipur submitted a transfer certificate of Junior High School, Sadaatpur, District Ghazipur with register no. 1239 wherein the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded on 31.12.1969. On a complaint received by the Office, inquiry committee was constituted, the committee on verification from the school namely Junior High School Sadaatpur, District Ghazipur found that the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining is a forged document. There was no record of that transfer certificate by register serial no. 1239 in the school. It was also recorded that the correct date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in Class-V transfer certificate no. 73 of Basic Primary School, Andhau, Ghazipur and as the said record has been verified by the Principal of the Basic Primary School, Andhau, Ghazipur, the date of birth of the petitioner therein as 5.9.1952 was admitted as correct. It was also recorded that the correct date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded in Class-V transfer certificate no. 73 of Basic Primary School, Andhau, Ghazipur and as the said record has been verified by the Principal of the Basic Primary School, Andhau, Ghazipur, the date of birth of the petitioner therein as 5.9.1952 was admitted as correct. It appears that before the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner filed a notary affidavit with another certificate of Class-VIII with the register no. 1556 of Junior High School, Sadaatpur, District Ghazipur wherein his date of birth was recorded as 31.12.1969. The Executive Engineer after consideration of these documents categorically records that there was no occasion for consideration of the certificate produced before the enquiry committee. It is further recorded that the earlier certificate submitted by the petitioner on 22.9.2001, was not verified by the Principal of Junior High School, Sadaatpur, Ghazipur and no other documents could be produced by the petitioner to substantiate the claim of his date of birth being 31.12.1969 and not as 5.9.1952, therefore, there was no occasion to interfere in the order dated 3.9.2012 whereby the writ petitioner was made to retire in the afternoon of 30.9.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reliance upon the verification report dated 31.10.2011 of the Block Development Officer, Ghazipur. On a query made by the Court as to in what capacity the Block Development Officer could verify the document pertaining to date of birth of the petitioner, there is no answer of the learned counsel for the petitioner." Though, counsel for the appellant repeatedly submitted that the difference was of only the serial number in entering the transfer certificate in the register, he could not place any material in support thereof before this Court also. In the circumstances we find no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in special appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.