[2025:RJ-JP:19123-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 650/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11963/2016 Todu Ram Atoliya Son Of Late Shri Ami Lal Atoliya, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 42 Sriram Colony, Behind Shani Dev Mandir, Station Road Jaipur - 302006. Retired As Special Assistant From M.i. Road Branch Of Allahabad Bank Now Indian Bank At Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Managing Director, Indian Bank, Head Office At 2 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata - 700001 2. Dy. General Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, 10 Motilal Atal Marg, Opposite Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Asthana Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Judgment 06/05/2025 1. Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal. 2. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the application and the nature of dispute raised by the appellant who appears to be a retired employee, we are inclined to condone the delay. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. 3. Application No. 8/2025 is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though in the service records, on the basis of the declaration made by the appellant, his date of birth was recorded as [2025:RJ-JP:19123-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-650/2024] 25.08.1953, it was bank’s own fault that he was wrongly allowed to continue in service beyond the date of retirement i.e. 31.08.2013. He would submit that the appellant never insisted that he should be allowed to continue beyond the age of superannuation. Since the respondent asked him to continue to serve, he continued. Therefore, no fault can be found as far as present appellant is concerned. For the additional period of about two years during which he was allowed to work, he was paid salary which could not be recovered. He places reliance upon the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors., 2009 (1) Supreme 163. 5. The records clearly speak that at the time of appointment, the appellant submitted his school certificate showing date of birth as 25.08.1953. In the service records also, the application for appointment is attached in which the appellant himself has declared his date of birth. The same continued to be part of service records. It appears that because of some typographical mistake before his retirement when a seniority list was issued, his date of retirement was wrongly recorded as 31.08.2015 in place of 31.08.2013. The appellant maintained surreptitious silence with the mens-rea of taking benefit of this wrong entry made in the seniority list and did not disclose this fact to the authority and sought to enjoy the benefit to which he was not entitled under the law. 6. The appellant is not entitled to any indulgence by the Writ Court only on the ground of his conduct and that he has not come with clean hands. It is well settled that a person whose conduct is itself blameworthy and who has not come with clean hands, is not [2025:RJ-JP:19123-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-650/2024] entitled to seek indulgence of Writ Court. The surreptitious silence maintained by the appellant was only intended to gain an undue benefit to which he was not entitled. 7. For this additional reason, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. 8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT-Diksha/41