(2026:HHC:36759 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 15138 of 2026 Decided on: 31st August 2026 _________________________________________________________________ Kusum Lata ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rupinder S. Minhas, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved by the rejection of her representation by the respondents in terms of the decision contained in office letter dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby petitioner’s prayer for changing her date of birth in service record was turned down. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner is currently aged 57 years. She was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) in the respondent-Education Department on contract basis on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 2 - 18.02.2021. 3(i) During the hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of entry into service, i.e. in February 2021, the petitioner had furnished her Matriculation Certificate issued to her on 18.07.1984 (Annexure P-4), reflecting her date of birth as 06.09.1968. The same was accordingly entered in her service record. The services of the petitioner were regularized by the respondent- department on 06.04.2023. 3(ii) It is the case of the petitioner that after joining the service, she noticed that her date of birth had been wrongly recorded as 06.09.1968, whereas her correct date of birth was 06.09.1969. The petitioner instituted Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 2023 on 01.03.2023 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Mandi, District Mandi, seeking declaration to the effect that her correct date of birth was 06.09.1969 and not 06.09.1968, which had been wrongly recorded in the Matriculation Certificate issued by the defendant. The only defendant impleaded in the civil suit was the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, District Kangra, through its Secretary. The petitioner did not implead her employer, viz. (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 3 - the present respondent. The civil suit was decreed on 24.07.2024. The defendant, viz. the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, implemented the judgment and decree by issuing a fresh Matriculation Certificate to the petitioner incorporating 06.09.1969 as her date of birth. 3(iii) Armed with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court and the fresh Matriculation Certificate issued to her, the petitioner, for the first time, represented to her employer on 25.08.2025, seeking correction of her date of birth recorded in the service record from 06.09.1968 to 06.09.1969. Petitioner’s representation was turned down by respondent No. 2, viz. the Director of Education, on 18.06.2026, with the following reasoning: - “It is further informed that, as per the provisions contained in Rule 1972 of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 2009, and the judgment dated 17.04.96 passed by the Hon'ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 341/1995, an application for change of date of birth is required to be submitted by a Government servant within two years from the date of entry into Government-service. However, the documents enclosed with the case reveal that Smt. Kusum Lata TGT (Arts), GSSS Dhawal, District Mandi, submitted her application for change of date of birth on 23.08.2025, i.e., after the expiry of the prescribed period of two years from the date of her entry into Government service. Therefore, her request for alteration of date of birth in the (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 4 - service records cannot be considered and allowed under the existing rules and instructions.” 3(iv) It is in the above background, petitioner has instituted this writ petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure P-4), may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to make correction in service record of the petitioner by entering his date of birth as 06.09.1969 instead of 06.09.1968.” 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 2 CWPOA No.7212 of 2019, decided on 31.08.2020 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 5 - 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.” 4. Consideration 4(i) Admittedly, at the time of appointment, the petitioner had furnished her Matriculation Certificate categorically reflecting her date of birth as 06.09.1968. The respondent, therefore, did not commit any error in recording 06.09.1968 as petitioner's date of birth. It is also worth noticing here that petitioner had passed out her 10th class in terms of certificate dated 18.07.1984 (Annexure P-4), wherein her date of birth was recorded as 06.09.1968. The petitioner was thus all along aware about 06.09.1968 having been recorded as her date of birth in the Matriculation Certificate. She had herself submitted the said certificate at the time of her entry into service. 4(ii) It was only around regularisation of her service that the petitioner instituted civil suit seeking declaration that her correct date of birth was 06.09.1969 and not (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 6 - 06.09.1968. The civil suit was decreed on 24.07.2024. However, the petitioner cannot enforce the aforesaid judgment and decree against her employer, as the employer was not impleaded as a defendant in the aforesaid civil suit. In Laxmi Singh Verma Vs. H.P. Board of School Education3, it was held that decree by the Civil Court against the Education Board directing correction of date of birth in the educational certificate will not entitle the employee to get his date of birth as entered in the service record corrected on that basis. 4(iii) 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 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 3 CWP No. 1227/2021 decided on 14.12.2021 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 7 - 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: - ““(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 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 8 - 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 Singh4, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that request for change of date of birth in the service 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 4 (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 9 - 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 Kamble5, 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 Agnihotri6. 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 Semwal7 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 Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran8 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, 5 (2010) 14 SCC 423 6 (2005) 11 SCC 465 7 (2005) 11 SCC 477 8 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 10 - 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 Shrivas9, it is held as hereunder; “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 9 (2011) 9 SCC 664 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 11 - 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)10 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.” The above principles were reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited versus T.P. Nataraja and others11, 10 (1993) 2 SCC 162 11 (2021) 11 SCALE 110 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 12 - 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(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 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 13 - 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.” In the instant case, it was petitioner who had furnished the authentic proof of her date of birth in form of her matriculation certificate. Based on said certificate, her date of birth was entered in the service record. Petitioner was all along aware that her date of birth had been entered in service record based on corresponding entry in her matriculation certificate. 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.12, 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 Dushad13 and Union of India Vs. C. Rama 12 AIR Online 2024 SC 333 13 (2000) 8 SCC 696 (2026:HHC:36759 ) - 14 - Swamy14, it was reiterated that relief for change of date of birth should not be granted when the employee had previously declared a different date for personal benefit. The principle of estoppel was invoked, as the employee had initially declared a specific date of birth and only after a significant delay did he seek to alter it, which would have made him underage at the time of appointment. The Court also relied on Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v T. P. Nataraja11, 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 cannot be granted to her. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 31st August 2026 rohit 14 (1997) 4 SCC 647