( 2025:HHC:23950 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 4575 of 2020. Reserved on: 21 st July, 2025. Decided on : 23 rd July, 2025. Basu Dev Sharma .. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Dy. A.G., for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Petitioner by way of instant petition has sought direction against respondents No.1 and 2 to correct his date of birth in the service record as 25.07.1968 instead of 28.07.1967. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the department of Education in the year 1989. At the time of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) joining of service by petitioner, his date of birth was recorded in the service record as 28.07.1967 on the basis of matriculation certificate of the petitioner issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education (for short “the Board”). 3. Petitioner claims that since his correct date of birth is 25.07.1968, the same should be recorded in the service records. 4. The respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for correction of date of birth vide communication dated 14.05.2018 (Annexure A-1), whereafter, the petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal with Original Application No.3243 of 2018. On abolition of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application of the petitioner was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 4575 of 2020 i.e. the instant petition. 5. The petitioner has alleged that till 2003, he believed his date of birth to be 28.07.1967. It was on his birthday in the year 2003 that he came to know that his actual age was 35 years. According to the petitioner, he thereafter inquired into the matter and found that in the record of Panchayat his date of birth was recorded as 25.07.1968. However, the date of birth of the petitioner in 3 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) the Government Primary School, Bah, where the petitioner had been admitted for primary education, his date of birth was recorded as 28.07.1967 on the basis of oral statement of the mother of the petitioner, who allegedly was an illiterate lady. 6. The petitioner made representation to the Board for correction of his date of birth in the matriculation certificate. The representation was rejected on 25.09.2003. The petitioner allegedly filed an Original Application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the year 2004, which according to the petitioner was disposed of as representation to be heard and decided by the Secretary of the Board. It is further averred that the Secretary of the Board again rejected the representation of the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have filed a Civil Suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur against the Board. A decree in favour of plaintiff is stated to have been filed by the Civil Court, to the effect that the correct date of birth of petitioner was 25.07.1968. On the basis of said decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2014, the Board corrected the date of birth of petitioner in the matriculation certificate. 4 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 8. The petitioner thereafter represented to respondent No.2 in the year 2015 for recording of correct date of birth in the service record on the basis of matriculation certificate issued by the Board. Since, the petitioner had remained unsuccessful, the instant petition was filed. 9. Respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that under Rule 7.1 of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, Vol. I, the petitioner could have applied for correction of date of birth within two years of the joining of service. The belated claim of petitioner for correction of date of birth in service records is stated to be not permissible. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 11. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had submitted any representation to his employer for correction of date of birth in service record before 2015, which means that such a representation was made by the petitioner after 26 years of the joining of service. Though, the petitioner has made averment that he had represented to respondent No.2 and in response he was advised to first get the correction made in the matriculation certificate, but no 5 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) tangible material has been placed on record to substantiate such plea. 12. The plea raised by the petitioner as to ignorance about his correct date of birth till 2003 also appears to be a clear afterthought. It is hard to believe that the petitioner, who is literate and had joined Government service, was not aware about his correct date of birth. In the petition, though, it has not been explicitly averred as to what was the source of his knowledge in the year 2003, however, it is revealed from the contents of representation made by the petitioner to the Secretary of the Board on 18.08.2003 that the petitioner had attributed such source to the “Family Pandit”. The version given by the petitioner is belied when in para -6(b) of the petition, it has been averred that after attaining the knowledge in the year 2003 on the occasion of his birthday, petitioner ventured into inquiries from horoscope, family pandit and record of Gram Panchayat etc. In case the “Family Pandit” was the source of knowledge then there could not have been any reason to make further enquiries from him, as alleged by the petitioner. 13. Even if, the plea raised by the petitioner is considered to be correct, still he did not approach his employer for a long period of 12 years after 2003. 6 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 14. It is well settled that a government servant is obligated to apply for correction of date of birth in service record within the period prescribed under service rules, failing which his date of birth as disclosed in the service records at the time of joining of government service is deemed to be the correct date of birth for the purpose of service of the incumbent. Rule 7.1 of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, Vol. I, prescribes the period of correction of date of birth in service record as two years. Even as per the note appended to Fundamental Rule 56, such an application can be made within five years. Admittedly, the representation of the petitioner for correction of date of birth to the employer is highly belated having been made in the year 2015 for the first time. 15. The legal position on the subject has elaborately been considered by a Division Bench of this Court (in which I was one of the members) in CWPOA No. 4998 of 2020, titled as Ram Krishan vs. H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors, decided on 27.06.2023 in following manner:- “7. It has consistently been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that request for change of date of birth in service records at the fag end of service is not sustainable. 7 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 8. It is otherwise well settled law that an application for change of date of birth can: (i) only be as per relevant provisions/regulations applicable; (ii) even when cogent evidence exists, it cannot be claimed as matter of right; and (iii) same can be rejected on ground of delay and laches, especially when made at fag end of service and/or when an employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation. 9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to one of the latest judgments on the subject rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited vs. T.P. Nataraja and others (2021) 12 SCC 27 wherein it was held as under: “10. Even otherwise and assuming that the reasoning given by the High Court for the sake of convenience is accepted in that case also even respondent No.1 – employee was not entitled to any relief or change of date of birth on the ground of delay and laches as the request for change of date of birth was made after lapse of 24 years since he joined the service. At this stage, few decisions of this court on the issue of correction of the date of birth are required to be referred to. 10.1 In the case of Home Deptt. v. R.Kirubakaran 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 158, para 7) “7. 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 8 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 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 the promotion for ever.” 10.2. In the case of State of M.P. v. Premlal Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664, in paragraph 8 and 12, it is observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 667 & 669) 6 “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 9 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 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 [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). 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.” 10.3. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others v. R.Basavaraju (2016) 15 SCC 781, it is observed as under: (SCC p. 782, para 5) “5. The law with regard to correction of date of birth has been time and again discussed by this Court and held that once the date of birth is 10 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) entered in the service record, as per the educational certificates and accepted by the employee, the same cannot be changed. Not only that, this Court has also held that a claim for change in date of birth cannot be entertained at the fag end of retirement” 10.4. In Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Ors. v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020) 3 SCC 411 of which one of us (Justice A.S. Bopanna) was a party to the bench has observed and held in paragraph 9 & 10 as under: (SCC pp. 415-17) “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. v. Gorakhnath Sitaram Kamble (2010)14 SCC 423 wherein a series of the earlier decisions of this Court were taken note and was held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 428-29, paras 16-17, & 19) “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 Agnihotri [(2005) 11 SCC 465: 2006 SCC (L&S) 96]. 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 Semwal [(2005) 11 SCC 477 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 106] relief was denied to the government employee on the ground that he sought correction in the service record after 11 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 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, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran [1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 449 : (1994) 26 ATC 828] reads as under: (SCC pp. 158 59, 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 9 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 12 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 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 Shrivas, (2011) 9 SCC 664, it is held as hereunder: (SCC pp. 667 & 669, paras 8 & 12) “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 13 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 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 sleepover their rights” (see Union of India v. Harnam Singh [(1993) 2 SCC 162 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 375 : (1993) 24 ATC 92] ). * * * 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 14 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 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.” 11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the 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) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right; (iii) 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. 12. 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.” 16. On testing the facts of the instant case at the touchstone of aforesaid exposition of law, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth in service records at a highly belated stage. 15 ( 2025:HHC:23950 ) 17. Noticeably, the petitioner has not placed on record either pleadings, orders or judgment passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and the Civil Court on the original application filed by the petitioner at the first instance and the Civil Suit subsequently filed by him. Evidently, respondents No.1 and 2 were not the parties in either of such law actions initiated by the petitioner. 18. The petitioner has not explained as to what prevented him from seeking the relief against respondents No.1 and 2 in the earlier original application filed before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal or in the Civil Suit filed by him. The conduct of petitioner reflects lack of bonafide. In the given circumstances, he cannot even claim any equity. 19. In result, the instant petition is dismissed being without any merits. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 23rd July, 2025. (jai)