The Allahabad High Court has quashed orders that sought to retire a thermal power plant employee more than a year before his scheduled retirement date, holding that the decision was taken without following due process and contrary to settled service law.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery passed the ruling in a petition filed by Yatish Singh, an employee of Harduaganj Thermal Power Plant, who challenged communications issued in March 2026 directing that he be retired on the basis of a different date of birth.
Background of the Case
Yatish Singh was appointed as a Shramik in March 1988. At the time of his entry into service, his date of birth was recorded as 19 October 1967 on the basis of a medical examination report. According to this entry, his retirement date was fixed as 31 October 2027.
Years later, discrepancies were noticed in various records relating to his date of birth. The employer claimed that certain documents, including a transfer certificate, reflected the date of birth as 14 April 1966, which would make him due for retirement on 30 April 2026. An inquiry was initiated after overwriting and use of correction fluid were noticed in service records.
The employee argued that the inquiry remained incomplete and that neither a final vigilance report nor any forensic examination had conclusively established who was responsible for the alterations. He also contended that he was never given an opportunity to participate in the inquiry before the adverse decision was taken.
The High Court examined the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974. The Court noted that where an employee had not passed the High School examination at the time of joining service, the date of birth recorded in the service book at the time of entry into service is to be treated as the correct date of birth for service purposes.
The Court found that two different dates of birth appeared in the records. One entry showed 19 October 1967 without any signs of alteration, while another reflected 14 April 1966 after overwriting and use of correction fluid. The Court observed that the authorities relied on a transfer certificate issued much later, in 2005, even though such a document was not the relevant record under the 1974 Rules.
Justice Shamshery observed,
“A decision to consider date of birth as 14.04.1966 being adverse to the petitioner, therefore, respondents could not take any decision at petitioner’s back.”
The Court further noted that the inquiry remained inconclusive and there was no proof that the employee himself had made any alteration in the service records. It also found it significant that changing the date from 1967 to 1966 would have shortened his service tenure, making such alteration contrary to his own interest.
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the communications dated 19 March 2026 and 23 March 2026. The Court directed that Yatish Singh shall continue in service on the basis of his recorded date of birth of 19 October 1967, with his retirement date remaining 31 October 2027.
The Court, however, clarified that the authorities would be free to complete any pending inquiry, provided the employee is given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Yatish Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Writ - A No. 5542 of 2026
Judge: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Decision Date: 05 May 2026
