HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 817 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 14.07.2025 in Writ-A No. 4949 of 2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner challenging the retirement notice dated 31.12.2012 and seeking a direction that she would retire on 31.12.2015 on basis of age certificate issued by CMO Allahabad has been disposed of with the following directions: "11. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that date of birth of petitioner shall be treated as 08.12.1952, however, since petitioner has not worked after her forced retirement, therefore, said period shall be deemed as 'no work no pay'. The petitioner is deemed to be retired w.e.f. 31.12.2015 and its legal consequence shall follow." 2. The respondent-petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis vide appointment letter dated 18 January 1996. Therein, her date of birth has been mentioned as 08.12.1952. The specific case of the appellant-department is that the respondent-petitioner while seeking appointment submitted an affidavit dated 10.01.1995 stating her date of birth as 08.12.1952. Accordingly, she was issued retirement notice dated 31.12.2012 stating that she would retire on 31.12.2012 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It seems that in the year 2012, the respondent for the first time raised dispute regarding wrongful recordal of her date of birth in the service record. According to respondent-petitioner, her correct date of birth is 08.12.1955. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Nishant Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Raj Narayan District Manager (Now Divisional Manager) Food Corporation Of India And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) Sita Devi And Another .....Respondent(s) The said plea was based on a medical certificate issued by CMO Prayagraj, merely on basis of x-ray report. 3. Learned Single Judge has observed that the case of both the parties is based on oral evidence and without any legal documentary evidence, no conclusive finding can be recorded. It has also been observed that since the respondent-petitioner had already retired treating her date of birth as 08.12.1952 and consequently, she would not be entitled to any salary on the principle of 'no work no pay'. However, in the same breath, it has also been observed that the respondent would be deemed to have retired with effect from 31.12.2015 and its legal consequence would follow. It would mean that her date of birth would be treated as 08.12.1955 and not 08.12.1952, as observed in the earlier part. 4. Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the affidavit submitted by the respondent at the time, she applied for compassionate appointment was conclusive evidence and the same has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the dispute regarding date of birth should have been raised at the very first opportunity and not after lapse of 16 years. He further submits that the findings recorded in the impugned order are self-contradictory. On one hand, it has been observed that the date of birth shall be treated as 08.12.1952 and in the same paragraph, it has also been observed that the respondent would be deemed to have retired on 31.12.2015. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent is unable to dispute the submissions made in relation to the contradictory findings recorded in the order of learned Single Judge. He also could not dispute before us that the respondent had herself filed an affidavit while seeking compassionate appointment wherein she mentioned her date of birth as 08.12.1952. 6. As the material on record has not been considered and we find that the findings recorded in the impugned order are self-contradictory, therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of learned Single Judge. It is, accordingly, set aside. 7. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Writ-Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order. SPLA No. 817 of 2025 2 8. Since the controversy will have material bearing on the retiral benefits, therefore, it is desirable that the writ petition is decided expeditiously. October 8, 2025 Mukesh Kr. SPLA No. 817 of 2025 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad