Click the Play button to listen to article

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the time limit prescribed under the service rules for correction of an employee's date of birth must be strictly adhered to, and courts cannot permit a belated correction merely on equitable considerations.

The Court observed that where the rules prescribe a two-year period for seeking correction, the court cannot extend or relax the period beyond two years by examining the rationale behind the rule

Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “The rules providing a time limit for the change in the date of birth are to be strictly followed and cannot be ignored on equitable consideration. Once the rule provides that the entry can be corrected within a period of 2 years, it is impermissible for the Courts to hold that the entry can be corrected beyond the period of 2 years on any equitable consideration.” 

Background:

Suresh Kumar, a Trained Graduate Teacher, approached the Civil Court seeking correction of his date of birth from August 30, 1968 to September 1, 1969 in his school and service records. He claimed that the incorrect date had been recorded due to an error on the part of his parents and relied on a birth certificate subsequently obtained from the authorities. 

The State opposed the claim, pointing out that the date of birth of August 30, 1968 was recorded in his matriculation certificate, school leaving certificate and service record, and that his father had also furnished the same date at the relevant time. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court allowed it, leading the State to approach the High Court. 

The High Court held that Rule 7.1 of the H.P. Financial Rules, 1971 clearly requires a government employee to seek correction of his date of birth within two years of entering government service. Since Suresh Kumar had joined service on September 1, 2001, but made his first representation only on May 13, 2003, his claim was beyond the prescribed period. 

The Court rejected the view that the limitation could be relaxed merely because the employee's claim was only a few months late or because the underlying purpose of the rule was to prevent claims at the fag end of service. 

The Court further observed that permitting belated changes could prejudice other employees by affecting their seniority and promotional prospects. It held that courts cannot relax a statutory rule on equitable considerations or independently examine whether the rationale behind the rule justified such relaxation. 

On limitation, the Court noted that the disputed date of birth had already been recorded in Suresh Kumar's matriculation certificate issued in 1985. His suit, filed in 2004, was therefore hopelessly delayed. The Court held that his subsequent discovery of the alleged correct date of birth through an astrologer did not postpone the accrual of his right to sue. 

The High Court accordingly concluded that the First Appellate Court had erred in permitting correction beyond the prescribed period and restored the Trial Court's judgment dismissing the suit. 

Case Name: State of H.P. & ors. v/s Suresh Kumar & Anr.

Case No.: RSA No.277 of 2010

Date of Decision: 13.08.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: