JUDGMENT : These writ petitions are filed by a mother and a daughter claiming pensionary benefits and compassionate appointment pursuant to the death of late Bhaskaran, who died while in service under the Guruvayur Devaswom. W.P(C).No.8984/2016 is filed by Smt. Ramya Raj seeking appointment on compassionate grounds claiming that she is the daughter of late Bhaskaran, who died on 4.7.2014 while working as Second Gr. Overseer under the respondents. W.P(c).No.21598 of 2017 is filed by Smt. Vanaja, claiming that she is the widow of late Bhaskaran and seeking directions to grant her the terminal benefits flowing from the death of late Bhaskaran. Producing the death certificate of late Bhaskaran, the legal heirship certificate and one and the same certificate certifying that late Bhaskaran was also known as Rajan, Smt.Ramya Raj claims compassionate appointment. 2. As there was delay in considering her application, petitioner submitted application under Right to Information Act and got Exts.P5 to P7 letters, from which she came to know that the 4th respondent had received complaints in respect of the identity of her father, saying that the person who died on 4.7.2014 was C.B. Rajan and based on that as per Ext.P5 letter dt.17.11.2014, the 4th respondent-the Senior Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit informed the 3rd respondent-the Administrator that a complaint was received in his office saying that the person who died on 4.7.2014 was C.B. Rajan, who is the brother of C.B. Bhaskaran and therefore, the 3rd respondent was requested to inquire into the complaint and to ascertain whether any impersonation was committed. It was requested that the Service Book for fixing pensionary benefits need be furnished along with the reports from the Village Officer and Tahsildar, after conducting the inquiry. The 3rd respondent had, as per Ext.P6 letter requested the 4th respondent, to approve the pensionary claims of late Bhaskaran pointing out that he died while on duty and all the documents produced were valid. Thereafter as per Ext.P7 letter dated 18.2.2015, the third respondent had directed petitioner's mother to produce the one and the same certificate to prove that late C.B. Bhaskaran himself is C.B. Rajan. Her mother had submitted Ext.P8 representation stating that she has produced all certificates for granting pensionary benefits pursuant to the death of her husband C.B. Bhaskaran. Thereafter as per Ext.P7 letter dated 18.2.2015, the third respondent had directed petitioner's mother to produce the one and the same certificate to prove that late C.B. Bhaskaran himself is C.B. Rajan. Her mother had submitted Ext.P8 representation stating that she has produced all certificates for granting pensionary benefits pursuant to the death of her husband C.B. Bhaskaran. The writ petition was filed at that stage complaining that the respondents were not taking any steps for granting pension and compassionate appointment. 3. Respondents 1 and 3 filed counter affidavit producing Exts.R1(a) to R1(i) documents stating that the person who was working in the Devaswom in the name of C.B. Bhaskaran was his elder brother C.B. Rajan. It is stated that Sri. C.B. Bhaskaran, had entered service as Helper in the Devaswom on 15.10.1984, with qualification of pass in Std. VII. He was promoted as Assistant Lineman on temporary basis as per order dt.28.11.1987 and as permanent Assistant Lineman w.e.f 1.3.1992. He was thereafter promoted as Second Grade Overseer as per order dt.11.11.1993. He died on 4.7.2014 while working as Second Grade Overseer. Smt. Vanaja, the petitioner in W.P(c).No.21598 of 2017, submitted Ext.R1(a) application dt.3.11.2014 along with her identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, no remarriage certificate by village officer, legal heirship certificate and the death certificate. The petitioner and her brother Vinilraj.C submitted Ext.R1(b) affidavit dt.13.11.2014 authorising the mother to receive pensionary benefits payable to late C.B. Bhaskaran. 4. It is stated that while so, one Sri C.P. Ravindran had submitted Ext.R1(c) complaint before the Minister for Revenue and Devaswom, Chairman of the Devaswom, Devaswom Commissioner, District Collector, Audit Officer and Secretary to Govt., Department of Revenue stating that the person who died while working in Guruvayur Devaswom was C.B. Rajan, the brother of C.B. Bhaskaran and that Sri C.B. Bhaskaran is alive and he is running a vegetable shop at Kandassankadavu. He produced the newspaper in which the photograph of late C.B. Bhaskaran was affixed in the obituary column in the news papers dated 03.07.2014 reporting death of C.B. Bhaskaran in which he was featured as an employee of Guruvayur Devaswom. Along with that he also produced the invitation letter dt.3.7.2014 of the mother and children with the same photograph affixed in it, for attending the post death ceremonies of Late Rajan. Along with that he also produced the invitation letter dt.3.7.2014 of the mother and children with the same photograph affixed in it, for attending the post death ceremonies of Late Rajan. He had requested the Devaswom to conduct a detailed enquiry as to whether C.B. Rajan obtained employment in the Devaswom impersonating as C.B. Bhaskaran. Govt. forwarded Ext.R1(c) complaint to the Devaswom for necessary action. While so, Ext.R1(d) complaint was submitted by the Guruvayur Prathikarana Vedi also before the Director General of Police requesting to conduct an enquiry through Crime Branch regarding the employment obtained by Rajan. The Managing Committee in its meeting held on 09.02.2015 considered the matter and resolved to direct Smt. Vanaja the mother to produce one and the same certificate from the Tahsildar to prove that Sri C.B. Bhaskaran and Sri C.B. Rajan are one and the same person. As per Ext.R1(e) letter dt.15.10.2015, the Devaswom had requested the Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayur Temple Police Station to issue a copy of the enquiry report conducted by the Police on receipt of the complaints Ext.R1(c) and R1(d). Thereafter, the Devaswom requested for the inquiry report from the office of the Crime Detachment, Thrissur. Exts.R1(e) to R1(i) letters would show the correspondence between the Devaswom and various Police officials to obtain a copy of the enquiry report of the Police. Along with additional counter affidavit filed on 15.10.2016, the respondents produced Ext.R1(j) report of the Detective Inspector, CBCID in which after enquiry into the complaints it was found that Sri Rajan, S/o. Chirukandath Balan had discontinued his studies while he was studying in the 6th standard in AJAS Govt. H.S.S, Kandassankadavu and he was found removed from the rolls of the school. Sri Bhaskaran, S/o. Chirukandath Balan, Kandassankadavu had studied in that school upto 8th std. One and the same certificate was found to have been issued at the request of the Tahsildar. From the Election I.D card of Rajan and on local enquiry it was found that Sri Rajan was working in the Guruvayur Devaswom in the name of Bhaskaran and that Sri Bhaskaran was running a vegetable shop at Kandassankadavu. The Village Officer had stated that certificate was given on the basis of an online application through Akshayakendra and on the basis of the legal heirship certificate issued to that office. The Village Officer had stated that certificate was given on the basis of an online application through Akshayakendra and on the basis of the legal heirship certificate issued to that office. It was stated that late Balan had 6 sons and all of them had studied in AJAS G.H.S.S. Sri Rajan had worked in Guruvayur Devaswom on contract basis for about 6 months to do electrical works and thereafter he got appointment as Helper. He applied in the name of Bhaskaran without the knowledge and consent of Bhaskaran producing the school admission abstract of Bhaskaran in the Devaswom and joined in the name of Bhaskaran. He happened to die while he was on duty in the Devaswom Office. The qualification prescribed for appointment as Helper is only literacy, Bhaskaran is 2 years younger than Rajan. Therefore as per the inquiry report of the Police, impersonation must have been for availing 2 more years of service. 5. The Additional Director General of Police had as per Ext.R1(k) letter dated 16.07.2015 addressed to the State Police Chief, recommended for a detailed inquiry to be conducted through the Devaswom Vigilance wing. Based on that the State Police Chief as per Ext.R1(l) letter dated 15.06.2016 addressed the Commissioner, Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram calling for a report after an inquiry through the Vigilance wing of the Devaswom. That letter was thereafter forwarded to the 1st respondent from the Travancore Devaswom Board as per Ext.R1(m) letter dated 20.07.2016. 6. It was stated that the allegations in the complaints Ext.R1(b) and R1(c) were serious in nature and the Local Audit Fund Dept. had as per Ext.P5 letter informed the Devaswom that succession certificate and the report of the Village Officer and Tahsildar had to be obtained after conducting enquiry into the allegations in the complaint. The managing committee in its meeting held on 24.06.2016 resolved to keep in abeyance the decision taken on 4.11.2014 on the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to refer the matter to the Police for conducting an enquiry. It is therefore stated that the petitioner's application cannot be considered. 7. The managing committee in its meeting held on 24.06.2016 resolved to keep in abeyance the decision taken on 4.11.2014 on the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to refer the matter to the Police for conducting an enquiry. It is therefore stated that the petitioner's application cannot be considered. 7. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that denial of her claim even after she produced all the certificates called for by the respondents, is illegal and that the certificates were issued by the competent authority to the effect that she and her brother Vinilraj and her mother Vanaja are the legal heirs of Late Bhaskaran and they had also produced the one and the same certificate that Rajan and Bhaskaran are the same person. 8. W.P(C).No.21598 of 2017 is filed by Smt. Vanaja claiming pensionary benefits. She has also claimed that the application for compassionate appointment is also not allowed. 9. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents in this writ petition also producing the enquiry report of the Police. It is stated that the additional Director General of Police had recommended to enquire into the matter through the Vigilance wing of the Board and informed the Commissioner. The managing committee of the Devaswom had in its meeting held on 5.12.2016 resolved to constitute a committee as recommended by the State Police Chief. It is stated that the Devaswom had as per resolution dt.20.5.17 resolved to recover the amount received by Sri Rajan for the period from 15.10.1987 to 4.7.2014 as he obtained employment by impersonation committing fraud. It is stated that the condolence was issued by the Devaswom before it came to know about the report of the detective inspector. 10. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to the benefits on account of the service rendered by the father/husband in the Devaswom. The widow also claimed pensionary benefits pointing out that pension is the property of the employee who rendered service. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no reason for the said Rajan to commit any impersonation as the educational qualification required for appointment was only literacy and in view of the fact that he had rendered about 27 years of service in the Devaswom it was only proper that the daughter is given compassionate appointment. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no reason for the said Rajan to commit any impersonation as the educational qualification required for appointment was only literacy and in view of the fact that he had rendered about 27 years of service in the Devaswom it was only proper that the daughter is given compassionate appointment. 12. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 13. The claim arises only if it is established that it was Sri C.B. Bhaskaran himself who had obtained employment in the Devaswom and in other words Sri Rajan had obtained employment in a fraudulent manner committing impersonation. 14. In the light of the inquiry report Ext.R1(j) of the Detective Inspector that the person who died on 07.02.2014 and who was working in Guruvayoor Devaswom was Rajan and Bhaskaran is his younger brother who is alive, it is necessary to have a look at the documents produced by the widow Vanaja along with her application Ext.R1(a) submitted before first respondent for family pension in the year 2014. In the identity card produced by her, which is issued by the Election Commission Smt. Vanaja is described as the wife of Rajan, 450, Chirukandath of Manalur Panchayat. A certificate dated 18.07.2014, issued by Village Officer, Karamuku, was produced, certifying that Vanaja, widow of late Bhaskaran is not remarried. A legal heirship certificate issued by Tahsildar on 27.09.2014, certifies that M/s. Vanaja, Vinilraj.C and Remya Raj.C are the legal heirs of late C.B. Bhaskaran, S/o Balan, Chirukandath House, Karamuck Village, Trissur Taluk. It is stated that no objection was received after notifying the same in Kerala Gazette dated 26.08.2014. Certificate registering the death of C.B. Bhaskaran, S/o. Balan, Chirukandath house, Kandassankadavu, on 04.07.2014 at Rajas Hospital, Chavakkad issued by the Chavakkad Municipality was also produced. Ext.R1(b) is an affidavit/No Objection/consent given by Vinilraj and Ramya Raj, children of late C.B. Bhaskaran authorising their mother Vanaja to receive the terminal benefits of deceased Bhaskaran. Certificate registering the death of C.B. Bhaskaran, S/o. Balan, Chirukandath house, Kandassankadavu, on 04.07.2014 at Rajas Hospital, Chavakkad issued by the Chavakkad Municipality was also produced. Ext.R1(b) is an affidavit/No Objection/consent given by Vinilraj and Ramya Raj, children of late C.B. Bhaskaran authorising their mother Vanaja to receive the terminal benefits of deceased Bhaskaran. Along with Ext.R1(c) complaint of one C.P. Raveendran, Remyasree, Karamuck, addressed to Minister for Revenue and Devaswom, Secretary, Department of Revenue, Commissioner, Collector and Audit Officer, alleging impersonation stating that C.B. Bhaskaran is alive and requesting to conduct an enquiry, news item along with the photograph appeared in the newspaper is produced, in which it was reported that C.B Bhaskaran, died while on duty. Along with that, he has produced an invitation card of Vanaja Rajan and others to attend the ceremonies (sanchayanam) scheduled to be held on 13.07.2014, in connection with the death of “Rajan, S/o late Balan, Chirukandath House, Kandassankadavu”, who died on 4.7.2014. The photograph in that invitation card is the same as the one which appeared in the news paper reporting the death of C.B. Bhaskaran, employee of Guruvayur Devasom. The complainant further produced the copy of page 19 of the voters list of the Manalur constituency for legislative assembly. Bhaskaran, S/o. Balan is shown at sl.no.496; his wife, daughter, son etc. are also included in it apart from his brothers. The name of Rajan is shown at sl.no.965; the mother Vanaja, wife of Rajan is at sl.no.966 and Vinilraj, son of Rajan is at 967 and Remya Raj, D/o. Rajan is at sl.no.968. News paper reports alleging impersonation are also produced along with the complaint, apart from the legal heirship certificate obtained by the mother and children as legal heirs of Bhaskaran along with one and the same certificate in which it is stated that C.B. Bhaskaran and Rajan are son of C.K. Balan, Chirukandath House, Karamuck. In Ext.R1(j) report the impersonation is found. 15. In case the factual findings in Ext.R1(j) are correct, it would show that Smt. Ramya Raj who had submitted application for compassionate appointment and is the daughter of Rajan, has claimed that she is the daughter of late Bhaskaran, when Bhaskaran, his wife and children are alive. It would also show that the certificates obtained and produced by the petitioners are also incorrect. It would also show that the certificates obtained and produced by the petitioners are also incorrect. That would also show that the petitioners also followed the very same fraudulent path for the purpose of pensionary benefits and compassionate appointment, obtaining certificates in the name of Bhaskaran. 16. On a perusal of the voters' list where Smt. Vanaja is shown as wife of Rajan, Ramya Raj as daughter of Rajan, the identity card of Smt. Vanaja in which she is described as the wife of Rajan, photograph affixed in the invitation card issued by Smt. Vanaja, in connection with the ceremonies after the death of late Rajan, the photograph of C.B. Bhaskaran appeared in the obituary column in which he was stated to have been died while on duty under the respondents, the address given in all these records, etc., coupled with the complaint and the inquiry report, any prudent person would reasonably suspect the identity of the person who was working in the Devaswom and there is every reason to suspect an impersonation being committed, though the purpose of the same is not clear. 17. From the service details of Bhaskaran, it is seen that Sri. Bhaskaran joined as Helper and was working as Overseer at the time of his death. He got several promotions during his service career. If at all there occurred a mistake in recording the entries in the Service Book, the employee had several opportunities to get it corrected, when orders promoting him as Lineman, Lineman Gr.I, Overseer, while fixing his pay, etc. If that was a mistake or fraud as alleged in the complaint, which remained without rectification, the action of the legal heirs also would have to be viewed in the same incorrect path of perpetuating the mistake or fraud in order to claim the pensionary benefits and compassionate appointment, obtaining certificates stating that they are the legal heirs of Bhaskaran. When in the identity card, voters' list and other records they are described as the wife and daughter of Rajan, though they obtained one and the same certificate, even when the inquiry report found that the living Bhaskaran is the younger brother of Rajan, it will have to be found that petitioners did not approach this Court with clean hands. 18. 18. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to decline relief to petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. It is settled law that any employment which is obtained by committing fraud would not be valid and based on such appointments obtained by fraudulent activities, no benefit can be claimed. 20. Sri. Gopal, the learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that employment obtained by committing fraud is null and void, relying on the judgments in R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala [ (2004) 2 SCC 105 ]. In that case the Apex Court was considering the validity of an appointment obtained by Sri Vishwanatha Pillai furnishing a false community certificate. It was held that when an appointment to a civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 can possibly flow from such a tainted force. His appointment itself was found illegal, though he had continued in service for 27 years. The Apex Court relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar [ AIR 1988 Pat 26 ], where it was held that right to salary, pension and other service benefits is entirely statutory in nature in public service and therefore once it was found that the very appointment is illegal and is nonest in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. It was also held that no sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue and equity and compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired status by practising fraud. Paragraphs 17 to 19 in the judgment in Viswanatha Pillai's case read as follow: “17. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra v. Director, Primary Education, Bihar. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held: (AIR p. 32, para 13) “13. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held: (AIR p. 32, para 13) “13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights, including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of the law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow from it.” 18. We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid cases. 19. It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service, the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. The appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eye of the law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flows from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for a Scheduled Caste, thus depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post, does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practising fraud.” 21. In Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal [ (2013) 9 SCC 363 ] while considering the case of termination of service of a Police constable who suppressed material information at the time of appointment regarding his involvement in a criminal case, the Apex Court held in para.15, 17 and 18 that dishonesty is not permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have committed fraud or misrepresented themselves. Paragraphs 15 to 18 read as follows: “15. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros., it has been held as under: (SCC p. 553, para 20) “20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court held that “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud”, and further held: (SCC p. 327, para 18) “18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. 17. In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court held that “misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud”, and further held: (SCC p. 327, para 18) “18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.” The said judgment was reconsidered and approved by this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav. 18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented themselves. In such circumstances the court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf. In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, observed as under: {M. Bhaskaran case, SCC p. 104, para 6) If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.” 22. As rightly contended by Sri. Gopal, when a person has taken undue advantage the court within its extraordinary jurisdiction can deny discretionary relief, as held by the Apex Court in the judgment in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Bajrangi Rabidas [ (2014) 13 SCC 681 ]. It was a case where the respondent entered service without producing his matriculation certificate and later claimed to continue 2 more years of service. It was held as follows: “18. The question that arises for consideration is that once he had availed the benefit by not stating the correct fact, whether the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be extended to him. xxxx xxxx xxxxxx 19. xxxxx It is well settled in law that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power of the High Court is required to be exercised “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. xxxx xxxx xxxxxx 19. xxxxx It is well settled in law that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power of the High Court is required to be exercised “to reach injustice wherever it is found”. In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, it has been observed that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The powers are purely discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in such class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. That apart, the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can always take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances and pass appropriate directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction being extraordinary it is required to be exercised keeping in mind the principles of equity. It is a well-known principle that one of the ends of equity is to promote honesty and fair play. If a person has taken an undue advantage the court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would be within its domain to deny the discretionary relief. In fact, Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has basically rested his submission on this axis. In our considered opinion, the Division Bench has erred in extending the benefit to the respondent who had taken undue advantage by not producing the Matriculation Certificate solely on the motive to get an entry into service. It is apt to note here that this Court in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad has ruled that the decision on the issue of date of birth of an employee is not only important for the employee but for the employer also.” 23. The circumstances arising in this case, raise reasonable suspicion in the mind as to commission of fraud by the deceased. The circumstances arising in this case, raise reasonable suspicion in the mind as to commission of fraud by the deceased. When the petitioners are claiming benefits on account of such suspected fraudulent activity, that can only perpetuate the already suspected commission of fraud, for which there cannot be any incentive or premium, even though it is unfortunate that a person who worked for 27 years and died while on duty is not getting the benefits, apparently on account of the suspected deeds on his part. In the light of the above said judgments, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, I deem it fit to decline relief to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.