HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 293 of 2023 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.05.2023 passed in Writ-A No.4856 of 2022 by which the writ petition of the appellant for correction in the date of birth as mentioned in the service record has been dismissed on the ground of delay and that he has sought this correction at the verge of his retirement. 3. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that he raised an objection firstly in the year 2002 and even thereafter several representations were made on which inquiries were set up. As regards the decision taken in the year 2011 on his representation submitted in 2002, he submits that he never received this. However, on being asked as to what is the explanation for waiting till 2022 before approaching the Court, he could only state that repeated representations were being made on which inquiries were being set up. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents demonstrates that the selection letter of the petitioner- Manohar Lal dated 11.12.1989 attaining the select list mentions his name at serial no.7 and in the corresponding column his date of birth is mentioned as 27.06.1963. Likewise, the appointment letter dated 15.12.1989 contains the name of the petitioner at serial no. 27 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Satish Kumar Misra, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Rahul Singh, Rajendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amarjeet Singh Rakhra Manohar Lal .....Appellant(s) U.P. Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow, Through Its Managing Director, And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) and it also mentions his date of birth as 27.06.1963. Copy of the service book has also been annexed wherein although there is some overwriting, in words it has been clearly stated that the date of birth is 27.06.1963. The contention of the appellant is that mischief was played in the service book. The date of birth was correctly mentioned as 27.06.1965 which was changed to 27.06.1963. 5. On being confronted, Shri Rakhra says that no doubt there is some overwriting, but it does not disclose as to when this overwriting took place and who did it. He, however, invites our attention to the documents that is the select list and the appointment letter wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 27.06.1963 and the endorsement in the service book that the date of birth mentioned therein as per the appointment letter, therefore, obviously, the overwriting appears to have been either a bonafide act to correct a mistake or a subsequent mischief, but in either eventuality no benefit can accrue to the appellant herein. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we also find that in the select list and the appointment letter the date of birth was mentioned as 27.06.1963 and not 27.06.1965, as is being claimed. Even if the appellant had submitted the application seeking correction of date of birth in 2002, there was no reason for him to sit over the matter till 2022 when he filed a petition in this regard. We have perused the rules known as the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974, which have been applied for the employees of U.P. Power Corporation also as per resolution of the Board and as per sub-section (3) thereof, if the candidate has not passed the High School or equivalent examination, the date of birth or the age recorded in his service book at the time of his entry into government service shall be deemed to be his correct date of birth or age, as the case may be, for all purposes in relation to his service including retirement etc. and no application or representation shall be entertained for correction of date or age in any circumstances whatsoever. SPLA No. 293 of 2023 2 7. Apart from the fact that in the select list and the appointment letter the date of birth of the appellant was mentioned as 27.06.1963, without any challenge being raised by him to the same at the earliest, which was the date of birth mentioned in his service book also, albeit with some overwriting, which has already been considered hereinabove. There is no plausible explanation for the delay in approaching the Court in the year 2022 just before his retirement in 2023. Therefore, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted for having declined to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction. We see no reason to interfere in this intra-court appeal. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. If any pension or post-retiral dues are payable to the appellant consequent upon his retirement in 2023, and there is no legal impediment then his claim in this regard shall be considered and a speedy decision would be taken. A decision in this regard shall be taken within three months. November 3, 2025 Anand/- SPLA No. 293 of 2023 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench