AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by letter dated 23.09.2017 by which the Principal, Government Degree College,
Khategaon informed him about his date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2017 and stoppage of GPF deductions w.e.f. September, 2017. According to the
petitioner his correct date of birth is 16.12.1958 and the Principal i.e. the Respondent No.4 without authority has wrongly retired him treating his date
of birth as 16.12.1952.
[2] According to the petitioner his correct date of birth is 16.12.1958 and he is having copy of birth certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat
Deepgaon, Tehsil Khategaon dated 13.11.1978. The petitioner took admission in Primary School, Deepgaon in Class-I and studied up to Class-V. The
Principal of the school issued transfer certificate dated 17.03.1978 in which his date of birth is mentioned as 16.12.1958. Thereafter he was admitted
in the Government Middle School, Sandalpur, Tehsil Khategaon on 08.07.1969 and after passing Class-VIII, transfer certificate was issued in which
also his date of birth was recorded as 16.12.1958. The petitioner studied in the Government Middle School, Khategaon from 1971 to 1972 and there
also a School Leaving Certificate was issued in which also his correct date of birth was mentioned as 16.12.1958. The petitioner is also having the
mark-sheet of Class-VIII mentioning his correct date of birth as 16.12.1958. The petitioner further submitted that inadvertently in mark-sheet issued
by Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1975 his date of birth was wrongly mentioned as 16.12.1952. The Board had also issued a
certificate in which also his incorrect date of birth i.e. 16.12.1952 was mentioned. The petitioner entered into the Government service as Assistant
Professor and in service book his correct date of birth 16.12.1958 was recorded. In all official documents, like e-service book, seniority, Gradation
List, Personal Identification Number, GPF Account all are containing correct date of birth i.e. 16.12.1958. In his entire service career he was never
informed that his date of birth is wrongly recorded in the service book. The petitioner has also got published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated
03.03.2017 mentioning his date of birth 16.12.1958. The Joint director of Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Ujjain Division, Ujjain after verifying the
service book of the petitioner and other official records opined that his date of birth is 16.12.1958.
The petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education on 04.08.2017 seeking correction of date of birth in the
mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1975. The petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 05.07.2017 to the
Respondent No.2 requesting to treat his correct date of birth as 16.12.1958 and his date of birth recorded in the service book be accepted. Copy of the
representation dated 05.07.2017 is filed as Annexure P/21 in this writ petition. By the impugned letter dated 23.09.2017, the Principal of the Degree
College has retired him from the service w.e.f. 31.12.2017 and stopped the deductions of GPF from the month of September, 2017. Hence, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.
[3] By order dated 21.12.2017 while issuing notices to the Respondents, this Court has directed the Respondents to maintain status-quo as regards
service conditions of the petitioner.
[4] After notice, the Respondents have filed the return by submitting that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor and after attaining the
age of 65 years, he has rightly been retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2017 considering his date of birth as 16.12.1952. The petitioner himself has filed
photo-copy of mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1975 in which his correct date of birth is mentioned as 16.12.1952.
The petitioner was initially appointed in the private college on 19.07.1983 and his date of birth was recorded as 16.12.1952. When the list of all the
employees, including the petitioner, was send to the Higher Education Department for the purpose of absorption of their services in the Government
College, a list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner found at Serial No.4 and date of birth is mentioned as 16.12.1952. There is overwriting
in the service book by which the date of birth has been changed from 16.12.1952 to 16.12.1958. The petitioner himself submitted representations on
18.02.2016 and 29.04.2016 for correction of his date of birth from 16.12.1958 to 16.12.1952 on the basis of marksheet of Higher Secondary School
Certificate Examination, 1975. It is further submitted by the Respondents that the correction of date of birth at the fag end of the service is not
permissible and once the date of birth is recorded, it cannot be changed by virtue of FR-85. The representations of the petitioner are pending before
the Higher Education Department in which the comments were sought from the Principal of the Government Degree College, Khategaon.
[5] Shri L.C.Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that except in the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination,
1975, in all other documents, the correct date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 16.12.1958. Even in service book, gradation list, GPF account
etc. his date of birth is recorded as 16.12.1958. Hence, Principal of the Degree College without any authority has wrongly retired him treating his date
of birth as 16.12.1952. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder by submitting that the letters dated 18.02.2016 and 29.04.2016 were written under the
threat of the Principal and there is no additional return by the State Government to controvert the same. Hence, the same is liable to be accepted. In
support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Komalchandra Mandloi
v/s Indore School of Social Work [1992 MPLJ 181]. The State Government is a competent authority to take final decision in respect of his date of
retirement not the principal and the final decision has been taken so far. Therefore, the services of the petitioner are liable to be continued till he
attains the age of 65 years on the basis of date of birth 16.12.1958.
[6] Shri Amit Singh, learned Government Advocate for the Respondents/State submitted that it is settled law by this Court as well as the Apex Court
that the employees cannot seek change of his date of birth at the fag end of his service and the Court would be slow in interfering with the issue of
correction of date of birth. The petitioner is placing reliance over the School Leaving Certificate and the mark-sheet issued by the Principal of the
Primary and Middle Schools. According to the petitioner the original documents are not available with him, therefore, photocopies of the same cannot
be relied upon and the disputed questions of facts are involved for which the appropriate remedy is Civil court available to the petitioner. In support of
his contention, he placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Manshabai Upadhyay v/s State of M.P. and others [Writ
Petition No.7259 of 2014 â€" decided on 26.03.2015] in which the writ petition has been dismissed which was filed at the fag end of the retirement.
He has also placed reliance over the order passed by Principal Bench in the case of Chintaman Masulkar v/s State of M.P. [2013 (1) MPLJ 84].
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
[7] The petitioner has conveniently suppressed the fact about his initial employment in the non-government private college. At the time of said
appointment, he disclosed his date of birth as 16.12.1952 as recorded in the mark-sheet issued by Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination,
1975. He was not directly selected in the Government service but became the Government Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Department
by virtue of his absorption because the said College was taken over by the Government. That entire staff of Private College absorbed in the
Government Department as per the list send by the Private College, Khategaon, District Dewas in which the name of the petitioner is at Serial No.4
with date of birth as 16.12.1952. The petitioner has also suppressed the fact about the representations dated 18.02.2016 and 29.04.2016 submitted by
him to the Principal for correction of his date of birth from 16.12.1958 to 16.12.1952. When the Respondents filed these representations along with the
return, then the petitioner came up with the case that under the threat and pressure of registration of FIR by the Principal he wrote these letters. At
the very first instance the petitioner ought to have disclosed these two letters in the writ petition and the circumstances under which he wrote these
letters, therefore, at this stage his defence pleaded in rejoinder cannot be believed. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He
has suppressed his earlier appointment in which his date of birth was recorded as 16.12.1952. Thereafter he has also disclosed in the writ petition
about his appointment in the Government Department by way of absorption. In these two letters he has admitted that his correct date of birth is
16.12.1952 and sought correction. Therefore, the remedy of writ petition is not available to those who did not approach with clean hands. In the case
ofRamjas Foundationv/s Union of India, reported in (2010) 14 SCC 38, the Supreme Court of India has held that if a litigant does not come to the
Court with cleanhands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum
“The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any
case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to
the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to
protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or
by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.â€
[8] The Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited v/s Bajrangi Rabidas [(2014) 13 SCC 681] has held that the date of birth mentioned in
Matriculation or Higher Secondary certificate has to be accepted as authentic. The Apex court has denied the equitable relief to the petitioner on the
ground that he suppressed the Matriculation Certificate in securing the appointment. In the present case also the petitioner used the date of birth
recorded in the Matriculation Certificate while securing the appointment in the private aided college. Thereafter he suppressed that mark-sheet when
his service was absorbed in the Government department. Para 17 and 18 of the judgment are reproduced below :-
“17. On an apposite reading of the instructions there can be no iota of doubt that the date of birth mentioned in Matriculation or Higher Secondary
certificate has to be accepted as authentic. But, a pregnant one, as has been indicated hereinbefore, the case at hand depicts a different picture. The
respondent did not produce the Matriculate Certificate, though he had passed the said examination. It is because, we are inclined to think, had he
produced the said certificate, he could not have undertaken the examination and consequently could not have been appointed. To secure an
appointment, as has been found in the enquiry, he made a statement that he had not obtained the certificate though he had passed the examination and
the same was accepted by the Welfare Officer of the then private company.
The question that arises for consideration is that once he had availed the benefit by not stating the correct fact, whether the equitable jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be extended to him. The Division Bench has recorded a finding the respondent could not have
been allowed to participate in the examination without producing the Matriculation certificate. The said finding is based on an assumption and has been
arrived at totally being oblivious of the enquiry report which records the statement of the respondent. In this context, we may profitably reproduce a
passage from Union of India v. C. Rama Swamy and others [1]: -
In matters relating to appointment to service various factors are taken into consideration before making a selection or an appointment. One of the
relevant circumstances is the age of the person who is sought to be appointed. It may not be possible to conclusively prove that an advantage had
been gained by representing a date of birth which is different than that which is later sought to be incorporated. But it will not be unreasonable to
presume that when a candidate, at the first instance, communicates a particular date of birth there is obviously his intention that his age calculated on
the basis of that date of birth should be taken into consideration by the appointing authority for adjudging his suitability for a responsible office. In fact,
where maturity is a relevant factor to access suitability, an older person is ordinarily considered to be more mature and, therefore, more suitable. In
such a case, it cannot be said that advantage is not obtained by a person because of an earlier date of birth, if he subsequently claims to be younger in
age, after taking that advantage. In such a situation, it would be against public policy to permit such a change to enable longer benefit to the person
concerned.â€
[9] So far as the mark-sheets and School Leaving Certificates pertaining to Class-V and Class-VIII are concerned, according to the petitioner he is
not having the originals of these certificates. Therefore, on the basis of photo-copies, it cannot be accepted that his date of birth recorded therein are
correct. The date of birth recorded in the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1975 is authentic and universally accepted
as correct date of birth. From the day one the petitioner is aware that his date of birth was recorded as 16.12.1952 in the mark-sheet of Higher
Secondary School Certificate Examination, 1975 but he has never made any effort for correction of the same. The said certificates he had used in
securing the employment in private collect and by virtue of said appointment later on he became the Assistant Professor in Government College.
[10] So far as the date of birth recorded in the service book is concerned, it is clearly evident that there is an interpolation in the date of birth, 1952 has
been made as 1958. Even in FR-84 and FR-85 the date of birth recorded in service book and the mark-sheet of Higher Secondary School Certificate
Examination, 1975 are accepted as correct date of birth. Therefore, no case for interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is made out. The petitioner is not liable to be continued in the service after 31.12.2017.
[11] Evan otherwise the scope of interference is very limited as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in following cases :
It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and another v/s Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble and others, reported in
(2010) 14 SCC 423, especially in para 10 to 12 as under :-
Entertainment by High Courts of writ applications made byemployees of the Government or its instrumentalities at the fag end of their services
and when they are due for retirement from their services, in our view, is unwarranted. It would be so for the reason that no employee can claim a
right to correction of birth date and entertainment of such writ applications for correction of dates of birth of some employees of Government or its
instrumentalities will mar the chances of promotion of their juniors and prove to be an undue encouragement to the other employees to make similar
applications at the fag end of their service careers with the sole object of preventing their retirements when due. Extraordinary nature of the
jurisdiction vested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution, in our considered view, is not meant to make employees of Government or
its instrumentalities to continue in service beyond the period of their entitlement according to dates of birth accepted by their employers, placing
reliance on the so-called newly-found material. The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who has been in service for over
decades, with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward
towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his Service Record,
the very conduct of non-raising of an objection in the matter by the employee, in our view, should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to
entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence, undue delay and laches. Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be
said to have been reasonably and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application, for no employee, who had grievance as to his date of birth in
his “Service and Leave Record†could have genuinely waited till the fag end of his service career to get it corrected by availing of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation, in holding, that ordinarily High Courts should not, in exercise of their
discretionary writ jurisdiction, entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Government or its instrumentality, towards the fag end of
his service, seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his “Service and Leave Record†or Service Register with the avowed object of
continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement.
Prudence on the part of every High Court should, however, inour considered view, prevent it from granting interim relief in a petition for correction
of the date of birth filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an employee in relation to his employment, because of the well-settled legal position
governing such correction of date of birth, which precisely stated, is the following:
When a person seeks employment, he impliedly agreeswith the terms and conditions on which employment is offered. For every post in the service
of the Government or any other instrumentality there is the minimum age of entry prescribed depending on the functional requirements of the post. In
order to verify that the person concerned is not below that prescribed age he is required to disclose his date of birth. The date of birth is verified and if
found to be correct is entered in the service record. It is ordinarily presumed that the birth date disclosed by the incumbent is accurate. The situation
then is that the incumbent gives the date of birth and the employer accepts it as true and accurate before it is entered in the service record. This entry
in the service record made on the basis of the employee’s statement cannot be changed unilaterally at the sweet will of the employee except in
the manner permitted by service conditions or the relevant rules. Here again considerations for a change in the date of birth may be diverse and the
employer would be entitled to view it not merely from the angle of there being a genuine mistake but also from the point of its impact on the service in
the establishment. It is common knowledge that every establishment has its own set of service conditions governed by rules. It is equally known that
practically every establishment prescribes a minimum age for entry into service at different levels in the establishment. The first thing to consider is
whether on the date of entry into service would the employee have been eligible for entry into service on the revised date of birth. Secondly, would
revision of his date of birth after a long lapse of time upset the promotional chances of others in the establishment who may have joined on the basis
that the incumbent would retire on a given date opening up promotional avenues for others. If that be so and if permitting a change in the date of birth
is likely to cause frustration down the line resulting in causing an adverse effect on efficiency in functioning, the employer may refuse to permit
correction in the date at a belated stage. It must be remembered that such a sudden and belated change may upset the legitimate expectation of others
who may have joined service hoping that on the retirement of the senior on the due date there would be an upward movement in the hierarchy. In any
case in such cases interim injunction for continuance in service should not be granted as it visits the juniors with irreparable injury, in that, they would
be denied promotions, a damage which cannot be repaired if the claim is ultimately found to be unacceptable. On the other hand, if no interim relief for
continuance in service is granted and ultimately his claim for correction of birth date is found to be acceptable, the damage can be repaired by granting
him all those monetary benefits which he would have received had he continued in service. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases it
would be imprudent to grant interim relief.â€
In case of State of Maharashtra v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble,reported in (2010) 14 SCC 423 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 582, at page 426 the Apex
court has further cautioned that normally, no application for alteration of the entry regarding date of birth as recorded in the service book or service
roll of a government servant should be entertained after a period of five years commencing from the date of his entry in government service….â€
Apart from the notification and the said instruction this Courtin a series of cases has categorically laid down that the employees should not be
permitted to change the date of birth at the fag end of their service career. In the instant case the application of alteration has been filed at the fag end
of his service career after a lapse of twenty-eight years.
In Union of India v. Harnam Singh1 this Court was confronted with almost similar facts. The Court laid down as under: (SCC pp. 172-73, para 15)
“15. In the instant case, the date of birth recorded at the time of entry of the respondent into service as 20-5-1934 had continued to exist,
unchallenged between 1956 and September 1991, for almost three and a half decades. The respondent had the occasion to see his service book on
numerous occasions. He signed the service book at different places at different points of time. Never did he object to the recorded entry. The same
date of birth was also reflected in the seniority lists of LDC and UDC, which the respondent had admittedly seen, as there is nothing on the record to
show that he had no occasion to see the same. He remained silent and did not seek the alteration of the date of birth till September 1991, just a few
months prior to the date of his superannuation. Inordinate and unexplained delay or laches on the part of the respondent to seek the necessary
correction would in any case have justified the refusal of relief to him. Even if the respondent had sought correction of the date of birth within five
years after 1979, the earlier delay would not have non-suited him but he did not seek correction of the date of birth during the period of five years
after the incorporation of Note 5 to FR 56 in 1979 either. His inaction for all this period of about thirty-five years from the date of joining service,
therefore precludes him from showing that the entry of his date of birth in service record was not correct.â€
In State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan2 this Court was clearly of the opinion that the government servant should not be permitted to correct the
date of birth at the fag end of his service career. The Court, in very strong terms, observed as under: (SCC p. 307, para 7)
“7. … The government servant having declared his date of birth as entered in the service register to be correct, would not be permitted at the fag
end of his service career to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of the entries in the service register. It is common phenomenon that just before
superannuation, an application would be made to the Tribunal or court just to gain time to continue in service and the Tribunal or courts are
unfortunately unduly liberal in entertaining and allowing the government employees or public employees to remain in office, which is adding an impetus
to resort to the fabrication of the record and place reliance thereon and seek the authority to correct it. When rejected, on grounds of technicalities,
question them and remain in office till the period claimed for, gets expired. This case is one such stark instance. Accordingly, in our view, the Tribunal
has grossly erred in showing overindulgence in granting the reliefs even trenching beyond its powers of allowing him to remain in office for two years
after his date of superannuation even as per his own case and given all conceivable directions beneficial to the employee. It is, therefore, a case of the
grossest error of law committed by the Tribunal which cannot be countenanced and cannot be sustained on any ground.â€
In Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran3 the Court again reiterated the legal position that the courts have to be extremely careful when application for
alteration of the date of birth is filed on the eve of superannuation or nearabout that time. The Court observed as under: (SCC p. 160, para 9)
“9. … As such whenever an application for alteration of the date of birth is made on the eve of superannuation or near about that time, the court
or the tribunal concerned should be more cautious because of the growing tendency amongst a section of public servants, to raise such a dispute,
without explaining as to why this question was not raised earlier.â€
The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance onthe judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar
Agnihotri. In this case, this Court has considered a number of judgments of this Court and observed that the grievance as to the date of birth in the
service record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.
In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought
correction in the service record after nearly 30 years of service. While setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed that the High
Court ought not to have interfered with the decision after almost three decades. 18. Two decades ago this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. M. Hayagreev
Sarma has held that subsequent claim for alteration after commencement of the Rules even on the basis of extracts of entry contained in births and
deaths register maintained under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, was not open. Reliance was also placed on State of U.P. v.
Gulaichi7, State of T.N. v. T.V. Venugopalan2, Bhadrak (R&B) Division v. Rangadhar Mallik8, Union of India v. Harnam Singh and Home Deptt. v.
R. Kirubakaran .
These decisions lead to a different dimension of the case that correction at the fag end would be at the cost of a large number of employees,
therefore, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran3
reads as under: (SCC pp. 15859, para 7)
“7. An application for correction of the date of birth [by a public servant cannot be entertained at the fag end of his service]. It need not be pointed
out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for
years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury, inasmuch as, because of the
correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which time many officers who are below him
in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotion forever. … According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot be lost sight of
by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such, unless a clear case
on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal should not issue a
direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully
satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the
procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. … the onus is on the applicant to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth,
in his service book.â€
In the case of Home Deptt. v. R. Kirubakaran, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 has the Apex Court retreated as under
An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant
concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction,
inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable
injury, inasmuch as, because of the correction of the date of birth, the officer concerned, continues in office, in some cases for years, within which
time many officers who are below him in seniority waiting for their promotion, may lose their promotions for ever. Cases are not unknown when a
person accepts appointment keeping in view the date of retirement of his immediate senior. According to us, this is an important aspect, which cannot
be lost sight of by the court or the tribunal while examining the grievance of a public servant in respect of correction of his date of birth. As such,
unless a clear case, on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the court or the tribunal
should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the court or the
tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in
accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the
period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The
applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such
question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. In many cases it is a part of the
strategy on the part of such public servants to approach the court or the tribunal on the eve of their retirement, questioning the correctness of the
entries in respect of their dates of birth in the service books. By this process, it has come to the notice of this Court that in many cases, even if
ultimately their applications are dismissed, by virtue of interim orders, they continue for months, after the date of superannuation. The court or the
tribunal must, therefore, be slow in granting an interim relief for continuation in service, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character is
produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated, but if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of
extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior.â€
 [12] The petitioner has continued after 31.12.2017 by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. Therefore, due to dismissal of the writ petition
he is not entitled for any benefit after 31.12.2017 except the salary paid to him. His service for the purposes of pension and other benefit liable are to
be considered up to 31.12.2017.
[13] Hence, the petition is dismissed.