Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16637 (HP)

Nitya Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-23

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That the respondents may be ordered to correct the date of birth of the petitioner and the same may be read as 04.12.1966 instead of 06.01.1966 and the petitioner may be allowed to continue in service upto the date of 60 years upto 31.12.2026 with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a Beldar on daily wage basis in the year 1985 and thereafter, his services were regularized/brought on work charge establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1995. According to the petitioner, his date of birth was wrongly recorded in the service record as 06.01.1966, though, his date of birth is 04.12.1966. It is further the contention of the petitioner that he approached the Competent Authority for correction of his date of birth in terms of the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat vide his representation Annexure P-2, yet, the needful was not done by the Competent Authority, hence the petition. 3. The reply to the petition filed by the State is to the effect that as the petitioner did not approach the Authority for correction in his date of birth within the time prescribed and as he approached the Authority after an inordinate delay of 30 years, i.e., beyond the period prescribed in FR 56, as also the instructions issued in this regard by the State of Himachal Pradesh, he is not entitled for the change in the date of birth. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition and the relief being prayed for cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1985 in terms of the averments made in the writ petition and, thereafter, he was brought on regular/work charge establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Now, it is not the case of the petitioner that the date of birth which exists in his service record was arbitrarily entered by the Department. Obviously, the date of birth is that which was provided by the petitioner and he got the same entered in the service record himself. Now, it is not the case of the petitioner that the date of birth which exists in his service record was arbitrarily entered by the Department. Obviously, the date of birth is that which was provided by the petitioner and he got the same entered in the service record himself. In terms of Note 1(d)(1) appended with Clause 7.1, Chapter VII of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules 1971, Volume-1, a request for change in the date of birth has to be made by an employee within two years as from the date of his engagement. Relevant portion of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, is being quoted hereinbelow:- “(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 gazetted Government servant is incorrect and has been incorrectly recorded with the object that the Government servant may derive some unfair advantage therefrom.” 6. Herein, the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1985 and his services were regularized in the year 1995. Even if benefit is to be given to the petitioner, he should have had approached the Authority within some reasonable time as from the date of his regularization, but, his having approached the Authority after 30 years, obviously being a belated request, has rightly not been considered by the Authority. 7. In light of above observations, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 8. At this stage, learned counsel submits that the due and admissible wages have not been paid to the petitioner. If that is so, the petitioner may approach the Authority mentioning therein the wages due to him and the Authority may take appropriate call for the release of the wages that may be due to the petitioner. 9. 8. At this stage, learned counsel submits that the due and admissible wages have not been paid to the petitioner. If that is so, the petitioner may approach the Authority mentioning therein the wages due to him and the Authority may take appropriate call for the release of the wages that may be due to the petitioner. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.