2026:HHC:22840 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.1033 of 2020 Decided on: 17.06.2026 Chhungal Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for the following substantive relief:- “a. That the respondents may be ordered to reinstate the applicant in service and he may be retired on attaining the age of 58 years by taking into account the date of birth as 4.5.1960 and not 4.5.1956 and necessary correction may be ordered to be made in the service book of the applicant by the respondents and the wages of the intervening period may be ordered to be paid to the applicant if the applicant was not at all at fault.” 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner was serving as a Mason with 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent No.3 and retired at the age of 58 years on 30.04.2015 as per the date of birth recorded in his service book. The claim of the petitioner is that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 04.05.1956, whereas he was born on 04.05.1960. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13(3) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1886, for correction of his date of birth before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., which was allowed on 27.04.2016, holding that the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.05.1960. After the correction of his date of birth by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., the petitioner was issued a fresh date of birth certificate by the Gram Panchayat, showing his date of birth as 04.05.1960. The petitioner has claimed that since he was retired before attaining the age of 58 years, the same is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner has prayed that he ought to have been retired on attaining the age of 58 years by taking into account his date of birth as 04.05.1960. 3. Respondent No.3 filed reply to the petition and contested the same on the grounds that the petition is 3 hopelessly time barred, under the law of limitation, as the petitioner had retired from service in the year 2015. He has no cause of action to file the present petition, and further he has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The petitioner had kept mum till the date of his retirement and further had deliberately and intentionally not arrayed the replying respondent in the Civil Suit and hence the judgment passed by the learned Civil Court is not binding upon respondent No.3. The petitioner had not disclosed the facts qua his employment in the Civil Suit and thus the decree passed by the Civil Court is not binding. 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply and controverted the facts. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had recorded his date of birth in the service book as 04.05.1956 and considering the said date, he was retired from service on 30.04.2015. It is also admitted that in the Civil Suit instituted by the petitioner, respondent No.3 was not impleaded as one of the respondents, as evident 4 from the copy of the judgment dated 27.04.2016, passed in Petition No.124/3 of 2013, titled, Chhungal Ram vs. President Gram Panchayat Lowerkoti (Annexure P-2). The petitioner for the first time after obtaining the aforementioned judgment raised the issue for correction of his date of birth that too by preferring the original application before the erstwhile Tribunal. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Fundamental Rule 56 has held in catena of judgments that the request for correction of date of birth can be entertained only if it is made within five years of entry into service, provided it is established that a genuine bona fide mistake had occurred, while recording the date of birth at the time of entry into service. Representations made for correction of date of birth cannot be admitted at the end of the career and further entertaining such claims would mar the chances of promotion of the juniors. Reference in this regard is made to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. M. Hayagreev Sarma, (1990) 2 SCC 682, Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh, AIR 1993 SC 1367, Executive Engineer, 5 Bhadrak (R&B) Division, Orissa and others Vs. Rangadhar Malik, (1993) Supp (1) SCC 763, Secretary & Commissioner Home Department and others Vs. R. Kirubakaran, AIR 1993 SC 2647, State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. S.C. Chadha, (2004) 3 SCC 394, State of T.N. Vs. T.V. Venugopalan, (1994) 6 SCC 302, Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and others Vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar and another, (1995) 4 SCC 172, Union of India Vs. Ram Suia Sharma, (1996) 7 SCC 421, State of Orissa and others Vs. Ramanath Patnaik, AIR 1997 SC 2452, Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. S.M. Jadhav and another, AIR 2001 SC 1666 and State of Gujarat and others Vs. Vali Mohmed Dosabhai Sindhi, AIR 2006 SC 2735. 8. Since in the present case, the petitioner had not made any request to correct his date of birth during his service, he cannot take any advantage of the decree passed in his favour, that too after his retirement from service. Thus, the claim raised by him cannot be entertained and as such the same is rejected. 9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, 6 there shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 17 th June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Kiran) Judge