2025:HHC:37939 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2714 of 2024 Decided on: 12th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gomati Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks correction in her date of birth from ‘06.10.1967’ as recorded in her service record to ‘01.01.1970’. Petitioner has since retired from service on 31.10.2025. 2. The case:- 2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Part-Time Water Carrier on 04.06.2002. Her services were converted to Water Carrier-cum-Peon on 31.02.2012 and regularized as such on 16.03.2017. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:37939 2(ii). At the time of regularization of her services, the petitioner furnished a 5th Class Pass Certificate (Annexure P-5), wherein, her date of birth was recorded as ‘06.10.1967’. As per reply, the same date was recorded as petitioner’s date of birth in the certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, in service record, petitioner’s date of birth was entered as ‘06.10.1967’. 2(iii). It appears that in the year 2023, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for declaring ‘01.01.1970’ as her date of birth instead of ‘06.10.1967’ as recorded in her 5th class certificate issued by the Education Department. Prayer was also made for correcting petitioner’s date of birth in the educational certificate. The respondent-Department was not impleaded as defendant in the civil suit, though the H.P. Board of School Education was impleaded as defendant. The civil suit was dismissed in default on 19.06.2023. The application seeking restoration of the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.2023. 2(iv). Subsequently, petitioner represented to the respondent-Department on 12.09.2023 for correcting her date of birth from ‘06.10.1967’ to ‘01.01.1970’. The representation was rejected on 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-8) on the ground of being a belated claim. 3 2025:HHC:37939 Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the respondents had wrongly rejected petitioner’s representation seeking correction in the date of birth on the ground of it being a stale claim. Inviting attention to following paragraph from Chet Ram Versus State of H.P. and others2, it was contended that the petitioner had represented to the respondents for correction of her date of birth in the service record within five years as provided under Note 6 of Fundamental Rule 56:- “11. A reading of Clause 172 of 2009 Rules supra harmoniously with Note 6 of Fundamental Rule 56, leaves no room of doubt that after the 2009 Rules have come into force, a person has to approach the competent authority for correction of the date of birth within 5 years as from the date when he entered into service, which in this case, has to be treated as the date of regularization. As from the date of regularization, be it 1971 Rules or be it 2009 Rules read with Fundamental Rule 56, Note 6, the petitioner did not approach the competent authority within the time stipulated therein for correction of his date of birth.” It was also submitted that the petitioner should also be given the benefit of time relaxation on account of COVID-19 pandemic in light of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the subject matter. 2 CWPOA No.7212 of 2019, decided on 31.08.2020 4 2025:HHC:37939 Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the writ petition on the strength of reply filed by the respondents. It was contended that petitioner had herself produced her Class 5th Certificate in support of proof of her age at the time of regularization of her services. Petitioner’s claim of her date of birth having been incorrectly recorded in the service record, made at the fag end of her service career, was justifiably dismissed being stale and impermissible in law. 4. Consideration:- 4(i). It is an admitted position that prior to 12.09.2023, petitioner had never represented to her employer for correcting her date of birth in the service record. Petitioner has not demonstrated as to why she could not represent or raise any grievance to the employer for correcting her date of birth in the service record, more so, when she was aware about ‘06.10.1967’ having been entered as her date of birth in the service record on the basis of documents produced by her. 4(ii). In terms of Note 6 of Fundamental Rule 56, date of retirement of a Government servant, be it 58 years or 60 years, as the case may be, has to be determined with reference to date of birth declared by the Government 5 2025:HHC:37939 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 Certificate or extracts from the Birth Register. The Note further provides that 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, as under: - “Note 6- (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 bona fide 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 of which he first appeared at such examination or on the date on which he entered Government service.” Clause 7.1 of Chapter VII of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971 provides that declaration of age made by the employee at the time of or for the purpose of entry into government service be deemed to be conclusive unless the employee applies for correction of his recorded age within two years from the date of his entry into the government service. Clause 7.1(d) of Chapter VII reads thus:- 6 2025:HHC:37939 “(d)(1) in regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of or for the purpose of entry into Government service, shall as against the Government servant in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applies for correction of his age as recorded within 2 years from the date of his entry into Government service. Government, however, reserves the right to make a correction in the recorded age of the Government servant at any time against the interest of that Government servant when it is satisfied that the age recorded in his service book or in the history of services of a gazette. Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom. (2) When a Government servant, within the period allowed, makes an application for the correction of his date of birth as recorded, an inquiry shall be made to ascertain his correct age and reference shall be made in all available sources of information such as certified copies of entries in the Municipal birth register, University or School age certificates, JANAMPATRI (horoscope) as the case may be. It should, however, be remembered that it is entirely discretionary on the part of the sanctioning authority to refuse or grant such application on being satisfied and no alteration should be allowed unless it has been satisfactorily proved that the date of birth as originally given by the applicant was a bona fide mistake and that he has derived no unfair advantages therefrom. In case the matriculation certificate is available, the date of birth recorded in the certificate will be deemed to be the correct age. (3) The result of every such inquiry should in the case of Gazetted/Non Gazetted Government servants be briefly stated in their service cards/service books and if correction is sanctioned, the fact should be reported to the Accountant General.” In Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Versus Shyam Kishore Singh3, Hon’ble Apex Court held that request for change of date of birth in the service 3(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411 7 2025:HHC:37939 records at the fag end of service after accepting the same to be correct during service, cannot be entertained. Even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under: - “9. This Court has consistently held that the request for change of the date of birth in the service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. The learned Additional Solicitor General has in that regard relied on the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble4, wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: “16. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Raj Kumar Agnihotri5. 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. 17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal6 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. * * * 19. 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, 4(2010) 14 SCC 423 5(2005) 11 SCC 465 6(2005) 11 SCC 477 8 2025:HHC:37939 any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran7 reads as under: “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.” 10. This Court in fact has also held that even if there is good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is erroneous, the correction cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In that regard, in State of M.P. vs. Premlal Shrivas8, it is held as hereunder; 71994 Supp (1) SCC 155 8(2011) 9 SCC 664 9 2025:HHC:37939 “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a government servant, particularly on the eve of his superannuation or at the fag end of his career, the court or the tribunal has to be circumspect, cautious and careful while issuing direction for correction of date of birth, recorded in the service book at the time of entry into any government service. Unless the court or the tribunal is fully satisfied on the basis of the irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth and that such a claim is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed or as per the consistent procedure adopted by the department concerned, as the case may be, and a real injustice has been caused to the person concerned, the court or the tribunal should be loath to issue a direction for correction of the service book. Time and again this Court has expressed the view that if a government servant makes a request for correction of the recorded date of birth after lapse of a long time of his induction into the service, particularly beyond the time fixed by his employer, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth, even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous. No court or the tribunal can come to the aid of those who sleep over their rights (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh)9 12. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the delay of over two decades in applying for the correction of date of birth is ex facie fatal to the case of the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific rule or order, framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application could be filed. It is trite that even in such a situation such an application should be filed which can be held to be reasonable. The application filed by the respondent 25 years after his induction into service, by no standards, can be held to be reasonable, more so when not a feeble attempt was made to explain the said delay. There is also no substance in the plea of the respondent that since Rule 84 of the M.P. Financial Code does not prescribe the time-limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty-bound to correct the clerical error in recording of his date of birth in the service book.” 9(1993) 2 SCC 162 10 2025:HHC:37939 The above principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited versus T.P. Nataraja and others10, wherein after considering its previous pronouncements on the subject, the law on change of date of birth was summarized as under: - “10. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court in law on change of date of birth can be summarized as under:- (i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/ regulations applicable; (ii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 11. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, the application of the respondent for change of date of birth was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches also and therefore as such respondent employee was not entitled to the decree of declaration and therefore the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law.” 4(iii). It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the time of regularization of her services, had herself furnished the 5th class certificate, wherein her date of birth was entered as ‘06.10.1967’. The said certificate is still alive today. 10(2021) 11 SCALE 110 11 2025:HHC:37939 Petitioner’s date of birth, therefore, has to be taken as ‘06.10.1967’. Petitioner’s reliance upon the medical fitness certificate in order to seek change in her date of birth is misplaced. In the said certificate, it is the petitioner, who had filled-in her date of birth as ‘01.01.1970’ at the time of medical examination. Self-serving document will not advance the case of the petitioner for change in her date of birth. 4(iv). Insofar as petitioner’s reliance upon the decision rendered in Chet Ram2 is concerned, suffice to note that applicability of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 2009 had not been discarded in the said decision. Rather, Hon’ble Court observed that the same has to be read in harmony with Fundamental Rule 56 and further clarified the issue as under:- “12. This Court clarifies that by not allowing this petition and by not directing the correction of date of birth, the Court is not giving any adjudication on the issue as to what actually is the date of birth of the petitioner. All that the Court is observing is that when an entry with regard to date of birth is made in the service record of an employee, which obviously was made on the basis of information provided by the employee himself, then, if as per said employee, there is any infirmity in the date of birth which he initially informed to the employer, then, he has to approach the employer for correction in date of birth within the time stipulated in the Rules in vogue, and if he fails to do so, then, he cannot subsequently approach the authority concerned for carrying out correction in the date of birth.” 12 2025:HHC:37939 4(v). Here, it will also be pertinent to note the specific pleadings of the respondents in the reply, which have not been rebutted by the petitioner:- “……….. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 16-03-2017 and she joined her duties on 18-03- 2017. She submitted her primary pass certificate at the time of regularization in which date of birth has been recorded as 6-10-1967. Moreover, the date of birth of the petitioner has also been recorded as 6-10-1967 in the certificate issued by concerned Panchayat.” Petitioner has also placed reliance upon an extract of Parivar Register placed on record of the writ petition as Annexure P-3, wherein her date of birth is entered as ‘01.01.1970’. However, against the above background, the 5th class certificate (Annexure P-5) furnished by the petitioner herself at the time of regularization of her services reflecting ‘06.10.1997’ as her date of birth, which certificate is still alive, will take precedence over the extract of Parivar Register with print date 21.01.2022 (Annexure P-3). 5. For all the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 12, 2025 Judge Mukesh