2025:HHC:25191 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7935 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Hardyal Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though actual date of birth of the petitioner is 15.07.1970, but inadvertently, same has been recorded as 15.07.1967 in the service record, as a result thereof, he is set to retire three years before reaching the age of superannuation, i.e. 58 years. 2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was not in the knowledge that his date of birth has been recorded as 15.07.1967 in service record, rather such fact came to his knowledge in the year 2022, when he was called upon by respondents to furnish his date of birth certificate. Pursuant to afore direction issued by the respondents, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:25191 2 petitioner though attempted to locate his birth certificate, but since same was not found, he applied for School Leaving Certificate, wherein his date of birth is shown to be as 15.07.1970 (Annexure P-1). Though on the basis of aforesaid document, petitioner made representation in the year 2025 to respondents for correction of his date of birth in service record, but such plea of him came to be rejected on the ground that correction of date of birth in the service record can only be made within a period of two years from the date of such entry, whereas in the case at hand, such prayer came to be made after a period of four decades. 3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner was inducted into Government service in the year 1985 and at relevant time, his date of birth was recorded as 15.07.1967 in the service record. For more than three decades, he chose not to get his date of birth corrected in the service record, however, even if it is presumed that entry in the service record with regard to date of birth of the petitioner was made at the time of regularization of his services in the year 1995, no explanation has been rendered on record qua delay in filing the application for correction of date of birth, which admittedly came to be filed in the year 2025 for the first time i.e. after 30 years. 4. 4. By now, it is well settled that prayer for correction of date of birth in the service record can be made within reasonable period from the date of entry in service record. It would be apt to reproduce following 2025:HHC:25191 3 para of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex court in Union of India versus Harnam Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 162: “Note (5) to Fundamental Rule 56 governing correction of date of birth in the service record, substituted by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Notification No. 19017/79/Estt-A dated 30th November, 1979 published as SO 3997 in the Government of India Gazette dated 15th of December 1979 limits the exercise of the right by the government servant to seek alteration of his date of birth only within the specified period. The provision reads as under: "Note 5 The date on which a Government servant attains the age of fifty-eight years or sixty years, as the case may be, shall be determined with reference to the date of birth declared by the Government servant at the time of appointment and accepted by the appropriate authority on production, as far as possible, of confirmatory documentary evidence such as High School or Higher Secondary or Secondary School Certificate or extracts from Birth Register. The date of birth so declared by the Government servant and accepted by the appropriate authority shall not be subject to any alteration except as specified in this note. An alteration of date of birth of a Government servant can be made, with the sanction of a Ministry or Department of the Central Government or the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, or an administrator of a Union Territory under which the Government servant is serving if (a) a request in this regard is made within five years of his entry into Government service; (b) it is clearly established that a genuine bonafide mistake has occurred; and (c) the date of birth so altered would not make him ineligible to appear in any School or University or Union Public Service Commission examination in which he had appeared, or for entry into Government service on the date on which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service." According to the above amendment, it is obvious that the request for correction of date of birth is required to be made by the Government servant within five years of his entry into Government service and his date of birth may be corrected if it is established that, a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred while recording his date of birth at the time of his entry into Government service. The CAT in the instant case was of the opinion that the bar of five years could only apply to such Government servants who joined service after 1979, when the amendment came into force and that the said period of limitation would 2025:HHC:25191 4 not apply to Government servants who were in service for more than five years prior to 1979.” 4.1. However, in the instant case, such prayer came to be made few months prior to superannuation of the petitioner, which is not permissible. Though Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that petitioner, being Class-IV employee, was not aware of his date of birth entered in the service record, but such submission of him deserves outright rejection for the reason that in the majority of documents, petitioner himself has mentioned his date of birth as 15.07.1967. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed being devoid of any merits. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 30, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)