( 2025:HHC:27867 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1224 of 2025 and LPA No.542 of 2025. Decided on: 14.08.2025 Satya ....Appellant/Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Viplav Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). CMP(M) No.1255 of 2025. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of Satya, delay of 153 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. LPA No.542 of 2025. 3. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2024, passed by the learned Single of this Court in CWP No.6988 of 2023 titled Satya Vs. State of H.P. & 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Ors., whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner, wherein the prayer as such was made for correction of date of birth i.e. from 06.01.1969 to 21.10.1969, on the basis of the entry made in the ‘Pariwar Register’ has been rejected and resultantly, the orders passed by the authority dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-9) and 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) were upheld. 4. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the claim of the applicant-petitioner vide representation dated 30.03.2002 was not a part of the case record and the respondents had denied receiving the same and relied upon the instructions dated 12.07.2024, which had been received that neither the said Diary Number was available nor the representation was traced before the office and that the record was not traceable. Resultantly, it was noticed that the Civil Suit had also been filed for correction of the date of birth after 15 years and the employer had not been impleaded as a party. 5. Accordingly, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in CWP No.1227 of 2021 titled Laxmi Singh Verma Vs. H.P. Board of School Education, decided on 14.12.2021, that the said decree as such would not give a right to employee to get his date of birth corrected. The representation which had been filed by the petitioner was on 05.07.2017 i.e. 17 years after her employment as Junior Engineer in the Jal Shakti Vibhag on 25.04.2000. 3 Resultanlty, reliance was placed upon the Rules as such that as per Clause 7.1 of Chapter VII of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, the request has to be made within two years from the date of his/her entry into the Government service. 6. While placing reliance upon and cementing the reasoning as such the learned Single Judge had also relied upon the judgment passed in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited and others Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411 and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited Vs. T.P. Nataraja and others (2021) 11 SCALE 110, to notice that the representation after 17 years for correction of date of birth cannot be done and merely on account of getting judgment and decree dated 15.06.2015, which was against the Education Board the relief as such cannot be granted. 7. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the State was under bounden duty as such to maintain the record and therefore, once the application had been filed within a period of two years of joining service, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. 8. A perusal of the orders dated 11.04.2023 (Annexure P-9) and 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-10) under challenge would go on to show that the reason which had been weighed with the respondent-Department was that the law had been laid down in 4 Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh Vs. Megh Raj Garg & Another AIR 2010 SC 2295 regarding belated requests for change of date of birth and while referring to Rule 7.1 of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules 1971 and Rule-56 of the FRSR (Part-I) that the respondent had not been represented to by the appellant for correction of her date of birth well within the stipulated time and it cannot be considered at this belated stage. 9. We have also scanned the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, whereby the Civil Suit was filed on 25.02.2015. A perusal of the pleadings reproduced as such by the Court and the evidence would go on to show that there was no mention even in that suit regarding the fact that the employer had been approached rather the Trial Court has recorded that the date of knowledge as such is 15.11.2014, when she ascertained the date of birth from the concerned Panchayat. The relevant part reads as under:- “Judgment The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration against the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that she born out of the wedlock of Sh. Dule Ram and Hima Devi on 24-10-1969 and birth entry to this effect has duly been made in the record of concerned Gram Panchayat Gora Gagal, Distt. Mandi, H.P., wherein the parental village of the plaintiff fall earlier and the plaintiff took birth. It is averred that the plaintiff is third child of her parents, whereas elder child of Sh. Dule Ram and Smt. Himar Devi is Sh. Bhushan Lal. The plaintiff born on 24-10-1969 and entry to this effect has been made in the parivar register of Gram Panchayat Kummi at page-14. It is also alleged that subsequently, the plaintiff was get admitted in School on the basis of the certificate issued by the Secretary of Gram Panchayat concerned dated 21-4-1975. In which date of birth to the plaintiff has been wrongly written as 6-1-1969. That the plaintiff passed her Matriculation 5 Examination in March, 1986 under Roll No.193604 from H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala and to this effect has duly been issued by the Board/defendant and in the above certificate, the name of the plaintiff is wrongly recorded as Satya Devi and date of birth is wrongly recorded as 6-1-1969, whereas, her actual name is Satya and her actual date of birth is 24-10-1969 and name of the father of plaintiff is wrongly recorded as Dule Ram Sharma whereas, his actual name is Dule Ram, as per the birth certificate/record, parivar register and other panchayat record, maintained by the concerned Gram Panchayat. That thereafter plaintiff completed the vocational training and accordingly the plaintiff resumed her duties as Assistant Engineer. That now for departmental purposes, the birth certificate is required to ascertain the date of birth and when birth certificate was obtained from the concerned Gram Panchayat on 15.11.2014, then this fact came to the knowledge that the actual date of birth of the plaintiff is 24- 10-1969 and not 6-1-1969 and for the correction, the defendant was approached, but the defendant showed inability to get the same corrected. Hence, this suit. 2. The defendant did not appear to contest the suit therefore, he was proceeded against exparte. 3. Plaintiff in order to prove examined himself as PW-1 who has categorically deposed that she born on 24-10-1969. Deposed that she is third child of her parents. Deposed that she is third child of her parents. Deposed that her date of birth has wrongly been written as 6-1-1969 in the School certificate issued by H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala. Deposed that her name is wrongly recorded as Satya Devi whereas her actual name is Satya and name of father is also wronlgy recorded as Dule Ram Sharma, whereas his actual name is Dule Ram. Deposed that on 15- 11-2014 she came to know when she ascertain the date of birth certificate from the concerned panchayat. She has tendered in evidence her date of birth Ex.PW-1/A. Copy of pariwar register Ex.PW-1/B. Matriculation certificate Ex.PW- 1/C., death and birth certificate Ex.PW-1/D and admission certificate Ex.PW-1/E.” 10. In pursuance of the pleadings she had given her statement that the knowledge had been obtained in the year 2014. It is thus, apparent that the plaintiff/appellant herein is bound by her own stand wherein a date of knowledge was mentioned in the year 2014 and therefore, now cannot turn back and fallback on the 6 representation made in the year 2002 and now blame the Department that the record cannot be traced. There is nothing on record to show that any representation was made before 2017 that an earlier request had been made in the year 2002. Therefore, in the absence of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the application for change of her date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches and specially when the request for change of date of birth in the service record has been made at the fag end of service. 11. The law has also been laid down in Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh (1993) 2 SCC 162 regarding this aspect which has been consistently followed by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya 2005(3) SCC 143, J.R. Singla Vs. State of Punjab and others 2005(3) RSJ 668 and State of Haryana Vs. Satish Kumar Mittal and another 2010(4) RSJ 795. The resort as such to filing of Civil Suit by specifically not arraying the employer as a party as such which was the appropriate remedy also, since it is disputed question of fact which was also to be decided by the Civil Court, whether the representation had been made in the year 2002 within the presecribed period or not. 7 12. Having chosen not to take on the onus of proving the said fact and not impleading the employer is also adverse circumstance which has to be taken against the present appellant. 13. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has chosen not to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case as such does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which would warrant interference in the Letters Patent Appeal. 14. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, are accordingly disposed off. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 14th August, 2025 (munish thakur)