CIVIL APPEAL 9510 of 2008 on 20 December 1942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CWP (T) No. 9510/2008 Decided on:21.12.2010

_____________________________________________

Amar Singh.

…Petitioner.

Versus

State of H.P. and others.

…Respondents.

________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?[1] No

For the petitioners : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate for the petitioners. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Respondent No.3 ex parte.

_____________________________________________________

Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral).

Petitioner was regularized as work charge Beldar vide order dated 2.3.1995. He joined his duties on 2.3.1995. His date of birth was recorded as 20.12.1942 on the basis of Annexure RA. The date of birth was also recorded as 20.12.1942 in his service book. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that his date of birth is 1944. He has placed reliance upon Annexure A-1. This has been issued on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 3.2.1992. According to the reply filed by respondent-State, the petitioner has supplied his date of birth as 20.12.1942 and the same was incorporated in the service book. He was retired after attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner was aware that his date of birth has been recorded as 20.12.1942. He has agitated this issue after a lapse of seven years. According to para 7.1 of Financial Rules, the Government servant, should make an application for correction of his date of birth within a period of two year after joining the service. There is inordinate delay seeking change in the date of birth.

2. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana versus Satish Kumar Mittal and another, (2010) 9 SCC 337 have held that the change in the date of birth should be sought expeditiously and not at the verge of retirement.

3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

21.12.2010 *awasthi*

(Rajiv Sharma), Judge