Dismissed¶¶30

Santi Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jun 2026CWP/9024/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Date of birth correction in service records; superannuation challenge; delay and laches at fag end of service; Anganbari Helper; Aadhaar Card; SDM Chopal order; Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules 1971 Chapter-VII; two-year limitation for DOB correction; CWP No. 9024 of 2026; Santi Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for, i.e., quashing of the office order dated 30.04.2026 retiring her. ¶¶13

Santi Devi Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was entitled to quashing of the office order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-16) retiring her on attaining the age of 60 years, in view of the Sub Divisional Magistrate's order dated 16.03.2026 correcting her date of birth to 08.12.1969. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for, i.e., quashing of the office order dated 30.04.2026 retiring her.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

This Court did not concur with learned counsel's submission that the State Regulations requiring correction of date of birth within two years of engagement were not binding on the petitioner; even assuming those Regulations were inapplicable to her, she was still required to approach the Department for correction of her date of birth within some reasonable time.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

A person engaged in 2007 who sought correction of her date of birth only in 2026, almost 19 years after engagement and at the fag end of her service career, knowing she would superannuate at 60 on the basis of the date of birth she herself provided, is not entitled to have the correction applied; on this basis the writ petition fails.ratio¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Ajay Mohan Goel, J.) dismissed a writ petition by an Anganbari Helper engaged in 2007 challenging her superannuation vide office order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-16) on attaining the age of 60 years, notwithstanding a Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chopal order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-13) correcting her date of birth from the year 1965 to 08.12.1969 and an Aadhaar Card of 2013 recording the corrected date. Held: a request for correction of date of birth must be made at the earliest or within a reasonable time; the Court did not accept the submission that the State Regulations requiring correction within two years of engagement (referenced via Chapter-VII, Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, 1971, Volume-I) were not binding on the petitioner as a non-Government servant — even assuming their inapplicability, she was bound to move the Department within some reasonable time. Relying on CWP No.2580 of 2026, Lalita Kumari v. State of H.P. (decided 05.03.2026) and Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd. v. T.P. Nataraja, (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 27, the Court held that an application made almost 19 years after engagement, at the fag end of service, is liable to be rejected on delay and laches. Petition dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2026:HHC:22432

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 9024 of 2026 Decided on : 05.06.2026

¶4

Santi Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Hirdya Ram, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶5

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶6

Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf the respondents.

¶7

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of office order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure P-16), in terms whereof, she stands retired on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.04.2026. The grievance of the petitioner is that as in terms of Annexure P-13, which is an order dated 16.03.2026 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chopal, in a case instituted by her for the correction of her date of birth, her date of birth has been ordered

¶8

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

¶9

2026:HHC:22432

¶10

to be corrected from the year 1965 to 08.12.1969, she could not have been superannuated till she had attained the age of 60 years by considering her date of birth as 08.12.1969.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the order was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.03.2026, the petitioner on 24.03.2026 approached the respondent-Department for carrying out the necessary corrections in the records, yet, she has been retired on the basis of her earlier date of birth entered in the record of the Department.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this

¶13

Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief, as prayed for.

¶14

A perusal of the petition demonstrates that the petitioner was engaged as an Anganbari Helper in the year 2007 in Anganbari Centre, Dachhi, Tehsil Nerwa, District Shimla, H.P. Obviously, the date of birth, which was entered into the Government records, was on the basis of the information, which was provided by the petitioner to the Competent Authority. It is further the case of the petitioner that in terms of the Aadhaar Card issued to her in the year 2013, her date of birth stood corrected as 08.12.1969. Yet, it is not understood as to why the petitioner did not approach the Authorities for the correction of her date of birth in the record of the Department

¶15

2026:HHC:22432

¶16

either within some reasonable time from the date of her initial engagement as an Anganbari Helper or within some reasonable time from the date of the issuance of the Aadhaar Card, which as mentioned in the writ petition was issued in the year 2013. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, on which, the petitioner is relying upon demonstrates that the case for the correction of her date of birth was filed by the petitioner only in the year 2026. On a query put by the Court as to why the petitioner did not approach the Authority for correction of date of birth within two years in terms of the Regulations issued in this regard by the State Government, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Regulations are not binding upon the petitioner, as she is not a Government servant. This Court does not concur with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even, if it is to be assumed that the Regulations framed by the Government, in terms whereof, an incumbent has to approach for the correction of date of birth within two years from the date of engagement are not applicable in the case of the petitioner, then also, petitioner should have approached the Department for the correction in her date of birth within some reasonable time, in terms of the Judgment in CWP No.2580 of 2026 titled Lalita Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 05.03.2026, wherein it has been

¶17

2026:HHC:22432

¶18

held as under:-

¶19

“6. It is settled law that 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:- “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.”

¶20

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Karnataka rural Infrastructure Development Limited Versus T.P. Nataraja and Others a/w connected matter, (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 27, has been pleased to

¶21

2026:HHC:22432

¶22

reiterate the law on this issue by holding as under in Para-11 thereof:-

¶23

“11. Considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court the law on change of date of birth can be summarised asunder:

¶24

(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;

¶25

(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;

¶26

(iii) 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.”

¶27

Herein, the petitioner who was engaged in the year 2007, approached the Authority for the correction of her date of birth in the year 2026 ie. almost after 19 years from the date of engagement and that too when she was at the fag end of her service career as she very well knew that she would be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years in terms of the date of birth provided by her to the Department.

¶28

Therefore, in the light of the above observations as the petitioner did not approach the Authorities for the correction of her date of birth in her record within reasonable time either from the date of her initial engagement or from the date when necessary corrections were carried out in her Aadhaar Card, the present

¶29

2026:HHC:22432

¶30

petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,

¶31

also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶33

June 05, 2026 (meera)

Santi Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santi Devi v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhwinder Singh and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vikrant Jagyan Vs Hpsebl and Another

Naveen Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Sharda Devi Vs State of Hp and Others