JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Shailendra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhiuday Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mani Shanker Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the notice of retirement dated 28.05.2021 communicating to him the date of his retirement as 30.09.2021, treating his date of birth as 04.09.1961. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially engaged as a daily wage employee/Peon at the Ghaziabad Office of U.P Scheduled Caste Finance and Development Corporation Limited. Later on, his appointment was made regular as per the Class-IV Employees Service Rules, 1975. At the time of his entry into service his date of birth was recorded as 04.09.1961. However, the petitioner had passed his High School in the year 1980 and when he was appointed in the year 1982, he did not posses the pass certificate, he only possessed the mark sheet of having passed High School. He received his High School pass certificate on 21.03.1991 which showed his date of birth as 06.11.1964. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as a Class-III employee on 30.08.1997 and at the time of his promotion he submitted a copy of his High School Certificate which he had received from the U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board in the year 1991. 4. There being an apparent discrepancy in the date of birth mentioned in his Original Service Book and in his High School passed certificate. A letter was issued on 15.10.2020 from the Head Office at Lucknow to the District Unit, Ghaziabad regarding verification of age and correct date of birth of the petitioner to which the District Unit replied on 06.11.2010. Subsequently, the Service Book of the petitioner was also sent by the District Unit of the Corporation to the Head Office on 07.01.2021. The Head Office at Lucknow issued a letter to the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education to verify the High School pass certificate of the petitioner and the date of birth mentioned therein through a letter dated 01.03.2021. The Intermediate Education Board sent a copy of the report of the Principal of the Institution where the petitioner had studied and also a copy of their own records on 29.06.2021 saying that as per their records, the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 06.11.1964. The Intermediate Education Board sent a copy of the report of the Principal of the Institution where the petitioner had studied and also a copy of their own records on 29.06.2021 saying that as per their records, the petitioner's date of birth is mentioned as 06.11.1964. A copy of the letter sent by the Secretary of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad U. P., Allahabad has been filed as Annexure-10 to the petition. The report submitted by the Chitrakoot Inter College, Moradabad dated 25.05.2021 has also been annexed as Annexure-09 to the petition. 5. After verification of date of birth from the Board as well as the from the institution in which the petitioner had studied, all of sudden a notice has been issued to the petitioner on 28.05.2021 communicating date of retirement of the petitioner as 30.09.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice/letter dated 14.07.2021 from the Head Office at Lucknow asking for original High School and Intermediate Certificate, Addhar Card, PAN Card which were sent by the District Office to the Managing Director. The petitioner also represented the matter before the Managing Director at the Head Office at Lucknow through proper channel i.e. through the District Manager wherein he submitted that he had passed his High School before his appointment in the year 1980 i.e. much before his appointment in 1982 and his date of birth was mentioned as 06.11.1964. The date of birth mentioned in his service record was incorrect and he should be allowed to work till 30.11.2024. However, nothing was done in the matter. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there are two Government Orders dated 23.08.1965 and 19.01.1976 with regard to the date of superannuation of the employees, and it has been clearly mentioned therein that the same can only be decided on the basis of High School Certificate. Copies of the said Government Orders have been filed as Annexure-16 and 17 to the writ petition. 7. It has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of an interim order passed in this case, the petitioner was retired on 30.09.2021 by the respondents. Copies of the said Government Orders have been filed as Annexure-16 and 17 to the writ petition. 7. It has been fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of an interim order passed in this case, the petitioner was retired on 30.09.2021 by the respondents. However, it has also been stated that if this Court is pleased to find that injustice has been done to the petitioner it can direct the respondents to treat the date of retirement of the petitioner as 30.11.2024 and allow him to work till 30.11.2024 treating him to be wrongly retired on 30.09.2021. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation the contents of the writ petition in so far as they relate to the date of passing of High School by the petitioner in 1980, the date of appointment of the petitioner in 1982 and his promotion in 1997 and the verification of his High School Certificate from the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and the substance of the Government Order dated 23.08.1965 and 19.01.1976 have not been denied. However, the respondents have denied the date of birth of the petitioner as according to them, the petitioner at the time of entry into service had declared his the date of birth as 06.09.1961. 9. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed initially on daily wage basis in the District Office at Ghaziabad on 10.03.1981, thereafter, he was appointed as regular Peon in 1982 and promoted temporarily on Class-III post as Assistant Grade-III/Vasuli Sahayak by an Order dated 13.08.1997. At the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner had mentioned his date of birth as 04.09.1961 and the same was recorded not only in his service book, but also in his Employees Provident Fund Scheme Form on which entry was made by the petitioner himself and not by the respondents. All through his service tenure, the petitioner was aware that his date of birth as being mentioned in the service record was 04.09.1961 and that he was due to retire in 30.09.2021, it is only after issuance of the retirement notice to the petitioner in May, 2021 that a dispute had been created by the petitioner at the fag end of his service career, it is impermissible in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court. The counsel for the respondent Corporation has pointed out a copy of the application initially submitted by the petitioner for his appointment as a Class-IV employee which has been filed as CA-01 to the counter affidavit. In the said application the petitioner has mentioned that he had passed High School and that he was 19 years old and that he had earlier worked on daily wage basis in the office and that he had come to know that the District Office had a vacancy of Class-IV employee for which he may be considered for appointment. His case was strongly recommended and forwarded to the Managing Director of the Corporation at Lucknow by the District Manager on 25.04.1982. In the letter dated 25.04.1982 sent by the District Manager to the Managing Director Corporation mention has also been made of the fact that after permission was granted on 30.07.1981 to initiate the process for selection of Class-IV employees in existing vacancies names were invited from the Employment Exchange, Moradabad. Fourteen names were sent by the Employment Exchange and one application of the petitioner was received by hand in the office straightway making a number of applicants as fifteen and that interview was held on 27.03.1982 and that the petitioner was found most suitable as he was already High School pass and had worked for sometime on daily wage basis in the office and he knew the work that had to be performed in the office. The letter dated 22.05.1982 sent by the Managing Director of the Corporation to the District Manager giving permission for appointment of the petitioner as Regular Class-IV Employee/Messenger in the pay scale of Rs.165-250/-, had also asked the District Manager to send the educational certificates of the petitioner, his Caste Certificate, his certificate regarding his Marital Status and Certificate of Medical Fitness. A copy of letter dated 22.05.1982 has been filed at page 13 of the counter affidavit. 10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that in all the records of the Corporation the petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned clearly. Such records are shown periodically to the employees and they also sign on such papers circulated. 10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that in all the records of the Corporation the petitioner's date of birth has been mentioned clearly. Such records are shown periodically to the employees and they also sign on such papers circulated. No where did the petitioner ever challenge his date of birth as having been wrongly mentioned as 04.09.1961 and the reason for keeping quiet in the matter was that had the petitioner claimed that he was born on 06.11.1964 and not on 04.09.1961, then he would have been ineligible to be appointed as a Class-IV employee as the minimum age required for such post is completion of 18 years as per the Class-IV Employees Service Rules of the State Government, which the petitioner himself has filed as Annexure-02 to the writ petition. The petitioner had through out concealed his actual date of birth and at the fag end of his service tenure he had submitted his High School Certificate showing his date of birth as 06.11.1964. 11. Sri Shailendra, on the other hand, has pointed out that it is not as if the petitioner had submitted his High School Certificate showing his date of birth as 06.11.1964 only after receipt of retirement notice but the High School Certificate of the petitioner was asked for from the District Office by the Head Office at Lucknow initially in 1982, and thereafter, also at the time of his promotion as Class-III employee in 1997. All along the employers had notice of the petitioner having passed his High School in 1982 and that his recorded date of birth was 06.11.1964. In fact a verification of his date of birth and other details as mentioned in the High School Pass Certificate issued to the petitioner in March, 1991 was also got made by the Respondent Corporation from the Principal of the institution in which he had studied and also from the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. 12. It has been argued that only because of oversight the petitioner did not try and get corrected his date of birth in his original service records which continued to mention his date of birth as 04.09.1961. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon three judgements of this Court namely:- (i) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38194 of 2000, ' Raj Narain Malviya Vs. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon three judgements of this Court namely:- (i) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38194 of 2000, ' Raj Narain Malviya Vs. Zila Panchayat, Sant Ravi Das Nagar & Another, decided on 06.09.2005, (ii) Shiv Charan Vs. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Lalitpur and Another 2006 (6) ADJ 310 , (iii) U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Satya Narain (Driver) and Another 2005 (2) ESC 1246 (Allahabad) (DB), 14. It has been submitted on the basis of two judgements of this Court rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches and also one by the Division Bench in the case of Sayta Narain (Driver)(Supra) that just as an employee cannot be permitted to get his date of birth changed at the fag end of his service, the same rule would apply to the employer also and the date of birth could not have been changed without due inquiry and show cause notice to the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations made by the Division Bench in Sayta Narain (Driver) (Supra)where a similar argument was raised by the appellant Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation before the Division Bench that on the basis of recorded date of birth, the entry into service of the writ petitioner was illegal as he would have joined service at the age of 15 years only whereas the minimum age requirement was 22 years and Indian Mejority Act required that he be at least 18 years when he entered service. It had also been argued that by the impugned order passed by the Writ Court directing the appellants to consider the writ petitioner as having retired on 30.09.2004, the respondent writ petitioner would be getting the benefit of nine months of salary without working. The appellants had cited several judgements before the Division Bench and the Division Bench had observed that the Court ought to exercise an equitable discretion in the matters and to judge whether it is fit and proper case for entering into the factual dispute. The Court observed that if the facts are correctly appreciated the law looks after itself. The Court observed in the paragraphs 9 & 10 as follows:- "9. ........If the writ petitioner was admitted into service below age, both parties were equally guilty; no misrepresentation of the writ petitioner is on record. The Court observed that if the facts are correctly appreciated the law looks after itself. The Court observed in the paragraphs 9 & 10 as follows:- "9. ........If the writ petitioner was admitted into service below age, both parties were equally guilty; no misrepresentation of the writ petitioner is on record. The service that was rendered by the writ petitioner while still under age, was paid for by the appellant, and no more. The breach of rules on both sides cannot make the writ petitioner get born earlier. 10. So far as the end period of the service is concerned, and the direction for payment of nine month's salary, even for this time there is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner was not willing to work; he was prevented from working. If he was prevented from working unjustly, the writ petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the wrong of another....." 16. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has placed reliance upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja & Others 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 535 where the High Court had allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the dismissal of Suit by the Trial Court rejecting the plaint of the original plaintiff for declaring the date of birth of the employee as 24.01.1961. The High Court had directed the appellants to reconsider the representation of the original writ petitioner with respect to change of date of birth. 17. The Supreme Court was considering several civil appeals arising in similar matters where the original dates of birth recorded in the service books were sought to be changed at the fag end of the service tenure of the employees concerned. The appellant Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited had adopted the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act, 1974 by a Resolution dated 17.05.1991, and therefore, the Rule which provided for request for change of date of birth in service record had to be made within a period of three years from the date of joining or within one year from the date of commencement of the Act of 1974 or from the date of its adoption by the appellant which was held to be mandatory. 18. 18. The Supreme Court preferred to several of its judgements passed in earlier matters which were considered as binding precedents and quoted from Home Department Vs. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155; State of M.P. Vs. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664 ; Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others Vs. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781; U. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs. Raj Kumar Agnihotri [ (2005) 11 SCC 465 and State of Uttaranchal Vs. Pitamber Dutt Semwal [ (2005) 11 SCC 477 , to observe that any direction for correction of date of birth of a public servant by the Tribunal or the High Court should be issued only after great circumspection and careful inquiry as such a direction for correction of date of birth of public servant concerned has a chain reaction, in as much as others waiting for years, for their respective promotions are affected in this process. The date of birth as recorded in the service book at the time of entry into government service cannot be sought to be changed by a Government Servant after lapse of a long time of his induction into service particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, and at the fag end of the service career. 19. However, this Court find from a perusal of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (Supra) that the Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that once the date of birth is entered into the service record as per the educational certificate, and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. In the case of the petitioner no request for change of date of birth in the service records was made by the petitioner. It was the respondents themselves who had issued notice of retirement and thereafter, the petitioner made a representation that his High School Certificate was already available with the Respondent Corporation as he had submitted the same in 1997 at the time of his promotion. The said High School Certificate was also got verified by the Corporation from the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and a favourable report was submitted on 29.06.2021 by the Board. As per the Rules date of birth of any employee has to be first determined on the basis of educational certificates submitted by such employee. The said High School Certificate was also got verified by the Corporation from the U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and a favourable report was submitted on 29.06.2021 by the Board. As per the Rules date of birth of any employee has to be first determined on the basis of educational certificates submitted by such employee. In case no educational certificate is available then the Chief Medical Superintendent’s Report regarding approximate age of the employee shall be looked into to determine his date of birth. In the case of the petitioner although he had stated in his application for appointment as Class-IV employee in 1982 that he was born on 04.09.1961, (may be for the purpose of getting the employment as he knew he would be otherwise under age, if he showed his date of birth as 06.11.1964), that fact would not detract from the principle as laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgements that date of birth of an employee cannot be sought to be changed at the fag end of his service career. 20. This Court has noticed that in the writ petition there is a clear mention by the petitioner in paragraph-07 that he had submitted his educational certificate in 1991 after getting a copy of High School Certificate by him on 21.03.1991. Only thereafter he was promoted in 1991 as a Class-III employee. However such a statement in the writ petition has not been denied in paragraph -08 of the counter affidavit of the respondents. It was the duty of the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner, if it had been wrongly recorded in his service record earlier, after he submitted his High School Certificate to them in 1991, and at the time of his promotion 1997 as a Class-III employee. It is not as if the petitioner had passed High School after he had joined service. In fact he had passed High School in 1980 and he entered service in May, 1982. So it cannot said that he deliberately mentioned a wrong date of birth at the time of filling up of his High School Form for the examination. 21. This Court finds that just as an employee cannot claim to get his date of birth changed at the fag end of his service tenure, the same principle would apply to the Employers as well. 21. This Court finds that just as an employee cannot claim to get his date of birth changed at the fag end of his service tenure, the same principle would apply to the Employers as well. The employer cannot of its own ignore the High School Certificate which had been duly verified by the U.P. Board only on the basis of incorrect date of birth mentioned in the service records. 22. The notice of retirement dated 28.05.2021 is set aside. The petitioner having already retired on 30.09.2021 and having not worked for more than a year cannot be given arrears of salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. The petitioner shall be allowed to work up to 30.11.2024 treating his date of birth as 06.11.1964 giving him continuity of service and annual increments and pay fixation accordingly. The appropriate order for joining of the petitioner at his previous place of posting shall be passed by the Managing Director, the respondent no. 2 within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 23. The writ petition stands allowed.