JUDGMENT : J.J. Munir, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Firozabad dated 16.12.2013, directing inter alia that the petitioner, the Headmaster of Junior High School, Bhitari, Block Narkhi, District Firozabad, be relieved of his duties forthwith having superannuated, a First Information Report lodged against him and the payment of his retiral dues stopped until salary paid to him in excess beyond the age of his superannuation is recovered. 2. On 10.02.2014, when this petition came up for admission, this Court, while issuing a notice of motion to the other side, passed an interim order in the following terms: “It is directed that the recovery sought to be made against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order dated 16.12.2013 shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. Sri Radha Kant Ojha very fairly requests that for the time being subject to the outcome of this writ petition the petitioner may at least be allowed provisional pension taking his date of retirement to be 30.6.2012 for his livelihood. Respondents do not have any objection to this proposal. It is further directed that treating the date of retirement of the petitioner to be 30.6.2012, as determined by the respondents themselves in the impugned order, the petitioner will be entitled to provisional pension treating 30.6.2012 to be his date of retirement, which will however be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.” 3. A counter affidavit dated 06.05.2014 was filed on behalf of respondent No.4, to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 05.05.2016. 4. Pending the writ petition, the sole petitioner, Vidya Sagar passed away on 28.08.2023. An application for substitution was made on behalf of his widow, Smt. Bitto Devi. It was allowed vide order 23.11.2023 and she was brought on record as petitioner No.1/1. This petition was admitted to hearing on 23.11.2023 as well, which proceeded forthwith. During hearing on 23.11.2023, this Court thought it fit to direct the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj to file an affidavit, certifying the date of birth of Vidya Sagar son of Ram Sahay, the original petitioner, the year and the college that he had appeared from in the Board Examination and the roll number assigned to him, which were mentioned in the order, directing the Secretary. The Secretary was also cautioned about the fact that the original records may be required to be produced in Court and the affidavit, therefore, that he would file, must indicate the particulars of the records that he has relied upon. The matter was, accordingly, adjourned for further hearing to 30.11.2023. On 30.11.2023, an affidavit along with an application to accept it on record was filed on behalf of the Secretary, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Prayagraj. The tabulation chart in original was produced on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Board of High School and Intermediate Education (for short, 'the Board') by Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, relating to the High School Examination of the year 1968 conducted by the Board. This Court went through the tabulation chart and recorded in our order of 30.11.2023 that at Sr. No. R/367/12, the roll number mentioned is 104055 and the name of the candidate is Vidya Sagar. His date of birth entered there is 21.01.1950 and his father's name is Ram Sahay. It is further recorded in our order of 30.11.2023 that upon a comparison with the petitioner's records, it is evident that the original tabulation chart produced by the Board relates to the petitioner and the particulars are referable to him. The affidavit too carries a copy of the tabulation chart, which was accepted on record. The hearing concluded on 30.11.2023 and judgment was reserved. 5. Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 6. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are these: The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination conducted by the Board in the year 1968, appearing therein from the M.G.M. Intermediate College, Jalesar, Etah. He passed the said examination in the 2nd division. The petitioner then sat his Intermediate Examination from the same Board in the year 1970 and passed it. He earned his degree of Bachelor of Arts in the year 1972. The petitioner earned his certificate in Teachers Basic Training Course in the year 1975, issued by the Department of Education, Government of U.P. 7. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, Primary School vide order dated 20.03.1985. He joined service as an Assistant Teacher. He earned his degree of Bachelor of Arts in the year 1972. The petitioner earned his certificate in Teachers Basic Training Course in the year 1975, issued by the Department of Education, Government of U.P. 7. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher, Primary School vide order dated 20.03.1985. He joined service as an Assistant Teacher. It is the petitioner's case that in the High School certificate issued to the petitioner, his date of birth mentioned is 21.01.1955. When the petitioner was appointed as aforesaid, he produced his original testimonials, including his High School certificate, on the basis of which he was permitted to join. The petitioner's work and conduct was without blemish and he never earned an adverse remark or entry in his career. He was promoted as Assistant Teacher, Junior High School in the year 2003 and then as Headmaster in the year 2011. According to the petitioner, his date of birth entered in his service-book is 21.01.1955, and, therefore, he had to retire in the year 2016. The petitioner's elder brother, Ramesh Chand son of Ram Sahay, who is older by 8 years, was assisting the petitioner's father in all matters relating to the petitioner's education etc. The petitioner's father was a farmer, unaware of many such matters. He had entrusted them to his elder son, Ramesh Chand. It was Ramesh Chand, who got the petitioner admitted to the institution, M.G.M. Inter College, Jalesar, Etah and disclosed his date of birth, that later on came to be entered in his High School certificate. The petitioner says that he had full faith in the bona fides of his brother and whatever was entered, he accepted it to be true. In all subsequent educational record, the entry remained consistent and also in his service-book. 8. The petitioner's brother was well aware of his date of birth furnished at the time of his admission. He moved a complaint on the Tehsil Diwas to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Firozabad on 01.10.2013, saying that the petitioner's date of birth is 21.01.1950 and yet he was continuing in service beyond the age of 62 years, reckoned on the basis of a date other than his actual date of birth. It was alleged that this continuance in service was on the basis of a forged document. Appropriate action in the matter was requested. 9. It was alleged that this continuance in service was on the basis of a forged document. Appropriate action in the matter was requested. 9. The aforesaid complaint was made by Ramesh Chand on the basis of a report dated 29.07.2013 given by the Principal of the M.G.M. College, Jalesar, Etah. It was a date of birth certificate, which said that, according to the school records, the date of birth of the petitioner, who was a scholar in the College and appeared in the Board Examination of 1968 under Roll No.104055, was 21.01.1950. The certificate mentions that the said date of birth was verified on the basis of the list of marks maintained with the College. Some inspection of records were done in the office of the Board, where it was found that the petitioner's date of birth recorded there was indeed 21.01.1950. 10. The petitioner was then served with the impugned order, holding that, according to the records of the Board, his date of birth was 21.01.1950, on the foot of which the petitioner would superannuate on 30.06.2012. He had forged his certificates and continued in service. The said order, which is impugned herein, directed the petitioner's immediate retirement from service, the lodging of an FIR and withholding of his post retiral benefits, until such time that salary paid to him beyond the date of his superannuation was recovered. 11. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted. 12. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Firozabad is that the petitioner committed forgery in his High School certificate and secured service playing fraud on the respondents. 13. In the rejoinder affidavit, the said stand is denied and the petitioner says that he has got appointment on the basis of a genuine High School certificate and has not committed any forgery. He has a right to continue according to the date of birth mentioned on his High School certificate, which is 21.01.1955, and not 21.01.1950. 14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is difficult to accept the petitioner's case. The petitioner's date of birth is indeed 21.01.1950, and not 19.01.1955. We have perused the original record, that is to say, the tabulation chart mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. 14. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is difficult to accept the petitioner's case. The petitioner's date of birth is indeed 21.01.1950, and not 19.01.1955. We have perused the original record, that is to say, the tabulation chart mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. It clear evidences that the petitioner's date of birth entered in the records of the Board is 21.01.1950; not 21.01.1955. How then his date of birth on his High School certificate issued by the same Board, came to be mentioned as 21.01.1955, is a matter for the petitioner to explain. There could be some shadow of doubt that the date of birth mentioned on the High School certificate was the product of a mistake, for the correction of which there is a provision in the regulations of the Board, but that possibility appears to be remote, considering the elaborate process through which certificates of matriculation issued by the Board passed, even in the day when the petitioner's certificate was issued. There would be a number of cross-checks before the entries were finalized. This need not detain us if the mistaken entry on the document, upon which the petitioner places reliance is the result of a mistake or forgery, given the fact that the petitioner has not only been removed from office by the order impugned, but is also no more in the mortal world. What is important now is how his rights, if any, would enure to the benefit of his widow. 15. Taking matters for the worst that the petitioner indeed relied on a High School certificate that is genuine, but got an entry there about his date of birth that was manipulated or forged, and on that basis served some extra years, the question is: Can the salary received by the petitioner for the extra years he served, be recovered from his estate in the hands of his widow? We think that it could not have been recovered even from the petitioner. In Sushil Kumar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 617 (DB), the writ petitioner had secured a compassionate appointment on the basis of a case that his father was a permanent employee in the Irrigation Department, holding the post of a Seenchpal. We think that it could not have been recovered even from the petitioner. In Sushil Kumar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 617 (DB), the writ petitioner had secured a compassionate appointment on the basis of a case that his father was a permanent employee in the Irrigation Department, holding the post of a Seenchpal. He disappeared on 01.08.1981 and was never seen or heard of by anyone, who would have naturally heard of him, if alive. A case of presumption of civil death was pleaded and the petitioner succeeded in securing compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Later on, it was revealed that the petitioner's father was a temporary employee, who could not be presumed dead for the purpose of conferring benefits upon his dependents. He was in fact terminated from service after due notice on 07.06.1983. It was also found that the petitioner's father had written a letter to the Department on 10.06.1983, where he had expressed his inability to work any further on account of his domestic problems and health etc. The Court held that the petitioner's appointment was rightfully terminated as it was the result of a fraud. There was no basis to the claim and, therefore, no right. The learned Single Judge, who had upheld the order determining the petitioner's services by the respondents, was affirmed. The Court found it to be a case of fraud and did not permit the writ petitioner-appellant to retain its benefit. However, so far as recovery of the entire salary for the period that the disentitled employee had worked, the Court prohibited it and limited the recovery to all emoluments paid to him, except the minimum pay scale admissible for the post held by the writ petitioner-appellant in that case. The prohibition from recovering the entire salary, amongst others, was founded on the principle of prohibiting begar enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution. In Sushil Kumar Pandey (supra), it was observed by the Division Bench: “23. …..... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is undeniably true that fraud has been played in obtaining the appointment by the appellant and it is also true that the said fraud would have remained undetected if the mother of the appellant had not applied for family pension. …..... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is undeniably true that fraud has been played in obtaining the appointment by the appellant and it is also true that the said fraud would have remained undetected if the mother of the appellant had not applied for family pension. During this period more than 10 years had elapsed and the authorities continued to take work from the appellant and for the services rendered he was remunerated by salary. Now after 10 years of service as the appellant has been dismissed, in such a case, the recovery of entire salary from the person would be too severe for the acts and omission on his part but also the omission and negligence on the part of the authorities in granting appointment to the appellant, which in the facts of the case cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits taking of 'Begar'. The State- respondents having taken work from the appellant (Sushil Kumar Pandey) for more then 10 years before the fraud was detected, cannot be permitted to ask for refund of the entire salary paid to him as it would amount to taking of 'Begar' which the Constitution of India strictly prohibits. 24. Be that as it may, we can also not shut our eyes to the fact that the salary and other service benefits extended to the appellant was result of a fraud committed by him as held by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, being in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Hon'ble Judge, but keeping in view the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that instead of recovering entire salary paid to the appellant, it is directed that the authorities concerned will be entitled to recover all the amount paid to the appellant from the public exchequer during the period that he was in service except the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the post held by the appellant. It is further directed that the authorities are also at liberty to proceed against the appellant or any other person or employee found to have been involved in the commission of the aforesaid fraud in any manner as may be permissible in law.” 16. Here, the case is not one of proven fraud. If the petitioner had been alive, may be an inquiry further into the matter, would have unravelled the truth. He is no longer there to answer. It is quite possible that notwithstanding the faith in the accuracy of certificates generally issued by the Board, the entry there might indeed have been the result of a mistake. Nothing much can be said about it either way except to hold it in the realm of doubt, if it was indeed fraud or a mistake after all, committed by the Board's office. What is sure is that the deceased Vidya Sagar's date of birth was in fact 21.01.1950 and not 21.01.1955. Therefore, the deceased did work beyond his entitlement to serve as he would have attained the age of superannuation going by the age of 62 years in the year 2012. Here, he worked up to the date of the impugned order dated 16.12.2013. We are also of opinion that even if he had to retire in the year 2012, there would be some extended service for him on account of the rule of session benefit etc. 17. Be that as it may, the fact is that the deceased Vidya Sagar rendered service up to 16.12.2013 and received his monthly salary. His entitlement to salary would only be up to the date of his superannuation in accordance with the rule applicable, but to recover the salary paid from him or his estate, would indeed be taking begar, under the circumstances that we have noticed. 18. Added to it is the fact that the recovery, if any, now directed, would have to be made from his estate in hands of his widow. It would be highly inequitable to direct that and the extension of this equity is not contrary to the law also. 19. Therefore, this Court holds that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner, the deceased Vidya Sagar's widow or his estate in her hands, including the deceased's post retiral benefits. It would be highly inequitable to direct that and the extension of this equity is not contrary to the law also. 19. Therefore, this Court holds that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner, the deceased Vidya Sagar's widow or his estate in her hands, including the deceased's post retiral benefits. Of course, the deceased's post retiral benefits shall be finalized according to his date of superannuation worked out on the basis of his date of birth being 21.01.1950. The petitioner would be entitled to sanction of a final family pension worked out on that basis and so also gratuity and other post retiral benefits, to which she is entitled as the deceased's widow for the services rendered by him. All these benefits and a finally determined family pension, shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order by respondent Nos.3 and 4. The impugned order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Firozabad is quashed to the extent it directs recovery alone. This writ petition succeeds and allowed in part in terms of the orders above made. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Agra Region, Agra and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Firozabad by the Registrar (Compliance).