Anant Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Sourav Rattan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶13

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶14

“ (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing, setting aside office order dated 08.06.2021 whereby the petitioner has been directed to be considered as retired on 30.06.2021.

¶15

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue working at, Sub Divisional Office, HPPWD, Haripurdhar, Sirmaur, H.P .”

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he joined as a labourer

¶17

in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department at Haripurdhar, District Sirmaur, H.P., on daily wage basis in the year 2003. His services were regularised in the month of July, 2012. At the time of joining, the petitioner submitted Panchayat record, in which, his

¶18

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

¶19

2

¶20

2026:HHC:7882

¶21

Date of Birth was mentioned as 01.07.1963. He did not realise that this was not his correct Date of Birth, as his actual Date of Birth was 12.11.1965. It is further the contention of the petitioner that later on, when he approached the Authorities for the correction of his Date of Birth in the service record, the same was not taken into consideration and he stands retired on the basis of his incorrect Date of Birth. It is in this backdrop that the petition has been filed.

¶22

The stand of the State, on the other hand, is that the petitioner initially joined as a Beldar, in the year 2003 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 31.03.2012. The petitioner accepted his regularisation without any protest and produced the requisite documents in original alongwith Birth Certificate, which was issued by Panchayat Sahayak, Gram Gehal, Block Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. in terms whereof, his Date of Birth was 01.07.1963. It is further the stand of the respondents that in light of the said Date of Birth of the petitioner, he was correctly retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2021. It is further the stand of the respondents that the petitioner armed with a School Leaving Certificate, issued by Government Primary School, Gehal, dated 08.06.2021 and a Date of Certificate issued by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Gehal, Development Block, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P. has filed this petition, claiming retirement on the strength of the Date of Birth mentioned therein just to procure undue benefit.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Date

¶24

3

¶25

2026:HHC:7882

¶26

of Birth which was earlier entered in the service record of the petitioner was erroneously entered and when he realized this mistake, he obtained a School Leaving Certificate on 08.06.2021, in which his correct Date of Birth was mentioned, i.e. 12.11.1965, but despite his request to enter the same in the service record, the respondents did not do the needful and thus, his superannuation on the strength of the earlier Date of Birth entered in his service record, is bad in law. Learned Counsel, accordingly, prayed that the retirement order of the petitioner be set aside and respondents be directed to allow him to continue in service on the strength of School Leaving Certificate dated 08.06.2021.

¶27

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Date of Birth in the service record of the petitioner is the one which he himself got recorded. He further argued that if there was any discrepancy therein, he should have had got the same corrected within two years as from the date of joining of service and if not as from the date of initial joining on daily wage basis, then at least within two years from the date when his services were regularized. He also submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has procured a certificate in the month of June, 2021 and on the strength thereof, his contention that he be allowed to serve as per the Date of Birth mentioned therein, cannot be entertained because the petitioner has not only raised this issue belatedly, but even beyond the period prescribed in the relevant

¶28

4

¶29

2026:HHC:7882

¶30

instructions raised by the State in this regard.

¶31

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith.

¶32

It is a matter of record that in terms of the documents which were provided by the petitioner to the Authorities, his Date of Birth entered in the service record is 01.07.1963. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner stands retired by taking his Date of Birth to be 01.07.1963. The petitioner was initially engaged as a Beldar in the year 2003 and, thereafter, his services were regularized in the month of July, 2012. If there was any discrepancy in the Date of Birth of the petitioner as entered in his service record, nothing prevented him from moving an appropriate application for the correction thereof within two years at least from the date of his regularization. In the present case, in terms of Annexure P-1, an order was passed by the Competent Authority that the petitioner shall be superannuating on 30.06.2021, as his Date of Birth was 01.07.1963. Now, incidently the petitioner obtained an Age Certificate from Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Gehal, on 01.06.2021 (Annexure P-2) and also obtained a School Leaving Certificate from Government his School at Gehal, dated 08.06.2021, to the effect that his Date of Birth was 12.11.1965. From the averments made in the petition, it appears that these documents were not submitted to the Authorities at all.

¶33

5

¶34

2026:HHC:7882

¶35

It is settled law that a request for the change in date of birth has to be made at the earliest as from the date when a person joins the service. In terms of Chapter-VII of the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, Volume-I, which deals with date of birth, the declaration of age 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. Relevant Clause is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶36

“ 7.1 Note 1 (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. ”

¶37

In the present case, even if the date of initial engagement of the petitioner is taken to the date when his services were regularized, the petitioner should have approached the Authorities within two years from the year 2012 for correction of his Date of Birth. Admittedly, he did not do so. In fact, he never

¶38

6

¶39

2026:HHC:7882

¶40

approached the Authority and has filed this case after he was superannuated in terms of Annexure P-1. Annexure P-2 and P-3 have also been obtained/procured by the petitioner at the fag end, i.e. in the month when he was to be superannuated.

¶41

Therefore, all this demonstrates that whereas the petitioner did not approach the Authorities for correction in his Date of Birth within the time as is mentioned in the instructions issued by the respondent-State, the Department, on the other hand, correctly superannuated him on the basis of the Date of Birth which was entered in his service record, in terms of the documents which were provided by him to the Department at the time of his regularization. Not only this, in terms of the reply the Date of Birth of the petitioner was duly entered in the service record as per the original documents made available in this regard by the petitioner.

¶42

Therefore, in light of above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶43

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶44

March 19, 2026 (Rishi)

Anant Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashi Kant Vs State of Hp and Others

Kiran Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mati Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Manish Dhiman and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kavita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vipan Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others