Bati Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 882 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bati Devi vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 15 May, 2025

Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua

( 2025:HHC:14152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7932 of 2025 Date of decision: 15.05.2025

Bati Devi ...Petitioner.

Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents.

Coram:

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner : Mr. Upinder Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner is left with less than about three

months of service before her superannuation. She moved

this writ petition seeking correction of date of birth in her

service record from 10.07.1965 to 16.02.1968. The sub­

stantive reliefs prayed for by her are as under:­

"(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to correct the age of Petitioner in her service book from 10.07.1965 to her original date of birth 16.02.1968.

ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to grant ben­ efits of service including superannuation as per original date of birth of Petitioner i.e. 16.02.1968 which us also men­ tioned in Parivar register and record of Gram panchayat Mogdha in the interest of justice."

1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ­2­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

2. The case set up by the petitioner is that:­

Petitioner was initially engaged as Part Time

Worker in the respondent­Education Department in the year

1996. Later on, work charge status was conferred upon her.

Her services were regularized during the year 2005. At the

instance of the petitioner, in the service record her date of

birth was reflected as 10.07.1965. This is the date of birth,

which is also recorded in petitioner's 5 th standard

examination certificate issued by Department of Primary

Education Himachal Pradesh.

2(ii) On the basis of her recorded date of birth as

10.07.1965, petitioner will superannuate from service on

31.07.2025. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on

03.05.2025 seeking direction to the respondents to correct

her age in her service book from 10.07.1965 to 16.02.1968.

Prayer has been made on the ground that her correct date of

birth is 16.02.1968 as is recorded in her birth certificate

(Annexure P­1).

­3­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

3. Learned vice counsel for the petitioner submitted

that though Parivar Register (Annexure P­1) page­11 of the

paper book, records 16.02.1966 as petitioner's date of birth,

yet petitioner's correct date of birth is 16.02.1968 as entered

in her birth certificate. Attention was also drawn to office

letter dated 13.02.2025 an inter departmental

communication moved on the basis of representation of the

petitioner for correcting her date of birth in the service record

from 10.07.1965 to 16.02.1968.

4. It is an admitted position that prior to

13.02.2025, petitioner had not represented to her employer

for correcting her date of birth in her service record. The first

ever representation by the petitioner for correcting her date

of birth entry in her service record was filed only on

13.02.2025 (Annexure P­3) i.e. just about six months prior to

her superannuation on 31.07.2025. The petitioner has not

demonstrated as to why she did not represent or raised any

grievance to her employer for correcting her date of birth in

her service record in accordance with Note 6 of Fundamental

Rule 56 and Clause 7.1 of Chapter VII of Himachal Pradesh

Financial Rules, 1971.

­4­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

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 ­5­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

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 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.

­6­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

(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 Singh1, 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 Kamble 2, 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 Agnihotri3. 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

(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 411

(2010) 14 SCC 423

(2005) 11 SCC 465 ­7­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

record should not be permitted at the fag end of the service career.

17. In another judgment in State of Uttaranchal v.

Pitamber Dutt Semwal4 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. Kirubakaran5 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

(2005) 11 SCC 477

1994 Supp (1) SCC 155 ­8­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

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 Shrivas6, 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 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)7

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,

(2011) 9 SCC 664

(1993) 2 SCC 162 ­9­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

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 time­limit within which an application is to be filed, the appellants were duty­bound 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 others 8,

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

(2021) 11 SCALE 110 ­10­ ( 2025:HHC:14152

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."

In view of above, relief as prayed for by the

petitioner cannot be granted to her at the fag end of her

service career. Hence, the petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua 15 May, 2025 th Judge (rohit)