Dhan Bahadur v. The State of HP and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 17447/2026

Decided on: 06.10.2026

Dhan Bahadur

…Petitioner

Versus

State of HP and Ors

. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith and Mr.

Sahil Thakur, Advocates.

For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner superannuated from the services of the respondents, Public Works Department, as Driller-cum-Blastman on 31.05.2020. Five years later, he preferred CWP CWP No. 4727 of 2025, essentially seeking directions to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated

19.12.2024 for changing his date of birth recorded in the service book. The writ petition was disposed of on

14.05.2025 with directions to the respondents to consider and decide petitioner's aforesaid representation in accordance with law. Respondents considered and rejected

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

petitioner's representation on 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order rejecting his representation hence this writ petition.

2.

Heard and considered the case file.

3.

Petitioner was engaged as Driller-cum-Blastman in the year 1997 on daily wage basis. He completed 8 years of daily wage service on 31.12.2003. He was offered regular appointment as Driller-cum-Blastman in terms of office order dated 28.05.2008. Upon this offer, petitioner joined as such on 29.05.2008. At the time of regularization of service, petitioner furnished a medical certificate wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 17.05.1962. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute petitioner's furnishing the medical certificate declaring his date of birth as 17.05.1962, but gave the explanation that such recording of the date was incorrect, as the same medical certificate reflected petitioner's age as 42 years, which ran contrary to the recorded date of birth of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his correct date of birth is 17.02.1966.

On the basis of date of birth recorded in the medical certificate of the petitioner, which the petitioner had himself furnished to the respondents at the time of regularization of his service, corresponding entries were also incorporated in his service book by the respondents. Petitioner's date of birth was recorded as 17.05.1962 in his service record. Admittedly, petitioner never disputed this entry. It has come in the impugned order that subsequently, some tamperings by overwritings were made in the date of birth entry in petitioner's service book with an attempt to increase length of his service. Be that as it may, fact remains that petitioner did not raise any dispute about the date of birth 17.05.1962 entered in his service book during his service.

4.

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 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 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 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."

4(i) In Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Versus Shyam Kishore Singh2, 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 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 Kamble3, 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

2(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411

(2010) 14 SCC 423 Kumar Agnihotri.4 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.

¶17In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Pitamber Dutt Semwal5 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. * * *

¶19These 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 fag end must be discouraged by the court. The relevant portion of the judgment in Home Deptt.v. R. Kirubakaran6 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

(2005) 11 SCC 465

(2005) 11 SCC 477 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 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, 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."

¶10This 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 Shrivas7, 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 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 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

(2011) 9 SCC 664 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)8

¶12Be 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 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."

4(ii) The above principles were reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka Rural Infrastructure

(1993) 2 SCC 162 Development Limited versus T.P. Nataraja and others9, 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 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 employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶11Therefore, 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 impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is unsustainable and not tenable at law." 4(iii) Ratio of above decisions apply to the facts of the instant case as well. In terms of office order dated

9 (2021) 11 SCALE 110

27.05.2020 issued by respondents, petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2020. He did not raise any dispute about alleged wrong recording of date of his birth in his service book during his service tenure. Four years later, i.e. on 19.12.2024, petitioner preferred a representation seeking correction in his date of birth, which was directed to be decided in terms of judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed in CWP No. 4727 of 2025. Respondents have justly rejected such representation. The relief for change of date of birth cannot be granted to the petitioner at this belated stage. In this regard, it will also be appropriate to refer to The General Manager M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines Vs. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors.10, 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 Dushad11 and Union of India v. C Rama Swamy12, 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

10 AIR Online 2024 SC 333 11 (2000) 8 SCC 696 12 (1997) 4 SCC 647 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. Nataraja9, 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 him at this stage. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Judge October 6, 2026

R.Atal.