2025:HHC:20552 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2130 of 2023 Decided on: 30th June 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Netter Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 6. Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner instituted this writ petition just about three weeks prior to his superannuation, essentially seeking correction of date of birth entry recorded in his service record. 2. From the joint submissions and the pleadings of the parties, following facts emerge. 2(i) Petitioner was initially engaged as Beldar on daily wage basis in the respondent-Public Works Department 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:20552 - 2 - during the year 1986. His services were regularized/brought on work charge basis w.e.f. 01.01.1997. Petitioner accepted the offer of regularization extended to him by the respondents and joined as such on 01.05.1998. At the time of regularization of his services, petitioner produced certificate dated 02.03.1998 from the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, to the effect that as per Pariwar Register, petitioner’s date of birth was 08.04.1965. Respondents accordingly entered 08.04.1965 as petitioner’s date of birth in the service record. On the basis of this date of birth, petitioner’s GPF forms were also sent to respondent No.7 for maintaining his GPF account. 2(ii) Subsequently, while perusing personal files of many incumbents including the petitioner, respondent No.4 noticed that requisite certificates in respect to date of birth/proof of age, had not been supplied and only the certificates issued by the Panchayat Authorities had been furnished. All such incumbents including the petitioner, were directed by the respondent No.4 vide office order dated 15.03.2024, to place on record valid/education certificates reflecting their date of birth. 2025:HHC:20552 - 3 - 2(iii) Pursuant to the above direction, petitioner placed on record his school leaving certificate dated 22.04.2006, issued by Government Primary School Bhawai, Education Block Nauradhar, District Sirmour, H.P. showing his date of birth as “08.04.1963 (आठ अŮैल सन उɄीस सौ तरेसठ)”. In view of this certificate placed on record by the petitioner, respondents entered 08.04.1963 as petitioner’s date of birth in his service record. 2(iv) Petitioner continued to discharge his duties. On the basis of 08.04.1963 as his date of birth, petitioner was to superannuate from his services on 30.04.2023. In July 2022, he represented to the respondents that his correct date of birth was 04.05.1965, the date of birth in his service record, therefore, be changed/ corrected from 08.04.1963 to 04.05.1965. Respondents did not take any concrete action on petitioner’s representation. Nearing superannuation, petitioner instituted this writ petition on 11.04.2023, seeing following substantive reliefs: “i. To issue directions or order or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the letter dated 13-03- 2023 (Annexure P-1) in view of the documentary evidences such as Annual GPF statements (Annexure P- 2), Birth Certificate issued by the competent authority 2025:HHC:20552 - 4 - (Annexure P- 3) and the Aadhar card (Annexure P-4) in the interest of justice and fair play. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to 4 to continue the petitioner in the service as Beldar till 31-05-2025 i.e. the exact date of retirement of the petitioner.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file as well as record. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon GPF statement forms of the petitioner [Annexure P-2 (colly)] where his date of birth has been mentioned as 08.04.1965. Reliance was also placed upon petitioner’s date of birth certificate [Annexure P-3 (colly)], his Aadhar Card and more specifically upon fresh school leaving certificate issued by Government Primary School Bhawai Education Block Nauradhar, District Simrour, on 01.08.2022, now reflecting his date of birth as 04.05.1965, to project that petitioner’s correct date of birth is 04.05.1965 and not 08.04.1963. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first entry in petitioner’s service record concerning his date of birth, made by the respondents was 08.04.1965. It could not have been altered by the respondents to 08.04.1963. Such alteration was not in consonance with the applicable 2025:HHC:20552 - 5 - instructions/Rules. Reliance was placed upon the decision rendered in Mrs Sabita Sen Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors2, wherein the employer’s one sided action to change employee’s recorded date of birth was quashed and set aside. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that petitioner had himself supplied the school leaving certificate, wherein, his date of birth was mentioned as 08.04.1963. Based upon this certificate, entry regarding petitioner’s date of birth was made in his service record. Petitioner’s claim that the said entry having been erroneously made or the fact that his correct date of birth is 04.05.1965, is hit by the doctrine of delay & laches and acquiescence as also by the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971. The petitioner has been justly retired on 30.04.2023 on his attaining the age of superannuation by taking his date of birth as 08.04.1963. 4. Consideration. 4(i) Admittedly, at the time of regularization/ conferment of work charge status upon the petitioner, he had produced a certificate from the concerned Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari to the effect that petitioner’s date of birth was 2 WPA 4656 of 2025 decided by High Court of Calcutta on 09.04.2025 2025:HHC:20552 - 6 - 08.04.1965. Authentic certificate in support of petitioner’s date of birth was not placed on record by the petitioner as also by many such incumbents, whose services were regularized/brought on work charge basis. Though on the basis of date of birth, as disclosed by them, the GPF forms were filled by the respondents/Public Works Department and forwarded to respondent No.7. 4(ii) Considering the fact that authentic proof in support of date of birth of the petitioner and other incumbents had not been furnished, the concerned Executive Engineer vide his letter dated 15.03.2004, directed the Sub Divisional Officers to further direct the incumbents including the petitioner, to furnish proof of their date of birth. Admittedly, it was the petitioner who had placed on record his school leaving certificate dated 22.04.2006 from Government Primary School Bhawai, Education Block Nauradhar, District Sirmour, wherein his date of birth was shown as 08.04.1963. Accordingly, the said date was entered by the respondents as petitioner’s date of birth in his service record. 4(iii) It is not in dispute that petitioner did not raise 2025:HHC:20552 - 7 - any grievance whatsoever regarding his date of birth 08.04.1963 as recorded in his service record, prior to July 2022. Petitioner was all along aware that in his service record, 08.04.1963 had been entered as his date of birth and such entry was on the basis of certificate he furnished. It appears that in the year 2022, petitioner undertook an exercise for correcting his school leaving certificate dated 22.04.2006. A fresh school leaving certificate was issued to the petitioner on 01.08.2022, now showing his date of birth as 04.05.1965. Alongwith this writ petition, petitioner has also placed on record his date of birth certificate, where also, his date of birth is reflected as 04.05.1965. Based upon these documents, petitioner claims for correction in his date of birth, in the service record maintained by the respondents. 4(iv) Petitioner has not justified his long silence in representing or raising any grievance to his employer for correcting his date of birth in his service record. 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 servant 2025:HHC:20552 - 8 - 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: - 2025:HHC:20552 - 9 - ““(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, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that request for change of date of birth in the service records 3 (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411 2025:HHC:20552 - 10 - 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, any correction at the fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in 4 (2010) 14 SCC 423 5 (2005) 11 SCC 465 6 (2005) 11 SCC 477 2025:HHC:20552 - 11 - 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; “8. It needs to be emphasised that in matters involving correction of date of birth of a 7 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 8 (2011) 9 SCC 664 2025:HHC:20552 - 12 - 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 9 (1993) 2 SCC 162 2025:HHC:20552 - 13 - 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.” 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.” The decision in Mrs. Sabita Sen2 relied by learned counsel for the petitioner was based upon the facts of that 10 (2021) 11 SCALE 110 2025:HHC:20552 - 14 - case. Facts of instant case are entirely different. Here it was the petitioner who had furnished the authentic proof of his date of birth in form of his school leaving certificate. Based on said certificate, his date of birth was entered in the service record. Petitioner was all along aware of the reason for his furnishing the school leaving certificate. Petitioner was aware that his date of birth had been entered in service record based on corresponding entry in his school leaving certificate. His claim made almost two decades later for change in recorded date of birth is certainly hit by delay, laches and acquiescence besides being barred by applicable Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to The General Manager M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.11, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the issue of correction of date of birth in service records, highlighting its critical importance for both employer and employee. Referring to precedents such as Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Shib Kumar Dushad and Union of India v. C Rama Swamy (1997) 4 SCC 647, it was reiterated that relief for change of date of birth should not be granted when the 11 AIR Online 2024 SC 333 2025:HHC:20552 - 15 - employee had previously declared a different date for personal benefit. The principle of estoppel was invoked, as the employee had initially declared his date of birth as 27.12.1948, and only after a significant delay of nearly a decade did he seek to alter it to 12.03.1955, which would have made him underage at the time of appointment. The Court also relied on Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v T. P. Nataraja10, summarizing the law that any application for change must be as per relevant rules, correction in recorded date of birth in service record cannot be claimed as a matter of right even with evidence, and can be rejected due to delay, especially near retirement. 5. In view of above, relief of change of date of birth in service record prayed for by the petitioner at the fag end of his service, cannot be granted to him. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 30, 2025 R.Atal