1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.43 of 2025 Date of Decision : 11.12.2025 Dabe Ram …… Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tamana Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 and 5/State. Mr. O.P. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Preeti, Advocate, vice Ms. Sakshi Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2024, passed by learned District Judge Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.20 of 2024, titled Dabe Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.54/2020, were affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had originally filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. It was pleaded that he is serving as a Peon in Government Senior Secondary School, Deohri, and his date of birth in the service record was recorded as 02.02.1963 based on a school certificate. The parents, being uneducated and rustic villagers, had verbally given this date at the time of his school admission, when no birth certificate was required. It was further pleaded that the Pariwar Register recorded his date of birth as 02.02.1965, also verbally given by his father. On 09.07.2020, the plaintiff, upon discovering the alleged mistake, obtained a birth certificate from the District Registrar which showed his actual date of birth as 12.03.1966. Apprehending that the defendants would retire him on the basis of the erroneously recorded date, thereby depriving him of the service benefits, he requested for correction of his date of birth in all records. His requests, followed by a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code dated 29.07.2020, were not acceded to by the defendants, leading to the filing of the suit on 03.10.2020. 3. The defendants contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, and limitation. On merits, they asserted that the date of birth recorded in the service book and Middle Standard Certificate (02.02.1963) was provided by the plaintiff's father and is binding. They further contended that as per the Education Code, the date of birth cannot be altered after two years from obtaining the school leaving certificate. 3 4. The learned Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues on 30.05.2022: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff was born on 12-03-1966 and date of birth shown in middle standard certificate, service record and pariwar register is wrong, null and void, as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 8. Relief? 5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a first appeal, contending that the impugned judgment was against law and facts, that the Trial Court misconstrued the pleadings and evidence, and failed to appreciate them in the correct perspective. The first appellate Court, however, upon consideration, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred the present second appeal. 6. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 7. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined one Amar Singh, JBT teacher, as PW-1, who produced the school admission record showing that the plaintiff was admitted to Class 1st on 02.04.1969 on an 4 application given by his father, Bhagat Ram, and that no birth certificate from the Panchayat was submitted at the time. The date of birth recorded in that school record was 02.02.1963. The plaintiff himself testified as PW-2, reiterating his pleadings and producing documents including the Pariwar Register (Ext. PW2/B) showing his date of birth as 02.02.1965, a birth certificate from the District Registrar (Ext. PW2/C) showing 12.03.1966, and his 8th class mark-sheet (Ext. PW2/J) showing 02.02.1963. In his cross- examination, the plaintiff admitted that he joined service in 2002, his services were regularized in 2017, and that the date of birth in his service book was recorded based on the certificate he provided. He claimed ignorance about the rule requiring an application for correction to be made within two years of service. 8. In rebuttal, the defendants examined one Puran Chand, Lab Assistant, as DW-1, who produced the plaintiff's service book (Ext. D-1/DW- 1) and 8th class marks-sheet, both recording the date of birth as 02.02.1963. Kuldeep Chand, Principal testified as DW-2, confirming the service record and stating that the plaintiff's services were regularized on 02.05.2017. He agreed that no birth certificate was attached to the service book. 9. Upon analysis of the evidence, it is evident that there is a direct conflict in the documents regarding the plaintiff's date of birth. The school admission record, 8th class certificate, and the initial entry in the Pariwar Register point to 02.02.1963 or 02.02.1965, while a subsequently obtained birth certificate from the Registrar indicates 12.03.1966. Crucially, no witness was examined from the concerned Panchayat or the Registrar's office to authenticate the birth certificate or to explain the original entry in the birth 5 register. The plaintiff, an educated individual who passed the 8th standard and was employed in a school, took no steps to seek correction of his date of birth in his service record for nearly two decades after joining service in 2002, and only initiated proceedings in 2020, on the eve of his superannuation. This inordinate and unexplained delay is fatal to his claim. 10. The law on this subject is settled. As held by this Court in Kala Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., in CWP No.682 of 2020, a government servant cannot be permitted to seek alteration of his date of birth recorded in the service register at the fag end of his career. The object of the rules is to prevent such belated claims which disrupt administration and affect the legitimate expectations of others. The plaintiff failed to make any representation within a reasonable time, specifically within the period envisaged under the relevant service rules, which in this case is two years. His suit, filed in 2020, is clearly barred by laches. 11. Consequently, the findings of the Courts below, which correctly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his claimed date of birth and that his suit was barred by delay and laches, do not call for any interference. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) December 11, 2025 (KS) Judge