__________________________________________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be al l owed t o see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP No.617 of 2011. Judgment reserved on : 12.12.2011. Decided on: December 19th, 2011. Samitra Devi D/o Sh. Sudama Ram, R/o Village Agrah, P.O. Agri, District Bijnour, U.P.( Retired Class-IV employee from HPTDC). ..Petitioner Versus H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Ritz Annexe, The Mall, Shimla-1, through its Managing Director. ..Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ order or direction. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate, vice Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for the respondent. Surinder Singh, Judge: The petitioner, by means of the present petition has challenged the action of her retirement on 31.3.2010 with further prayer that she be treated in continuous service with the respondent-Corporation with all consequential benefits by taking her date of - 2 - birth as 15.11.1954, shown in the seniority list circulated from time to time. 2. In fact the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Castes category. She joined as Sweeper in the respondent-Corporation on 1.4.1980. The first seniority lists which were circulated on 25.7.1984 (Annexure P- 1), 1997 (Annexure P-2) and for year 1998 (Annexure P-3) showing her date of birth as 15.11.1994, but subsequently, in the seniority list circulated in the year 2004 (AnnexureP-4), her date of birth was shown as 7.3.1950 against her name at Serial No.14, thus she made representation to the competent authority, but the respondent-Corporation did not decide her representation, rather wrongly, illegally and in an arbitrary manner chose to retire her on and w.e.f. 31.3.2010. She also represented that she had declared her age 26 years at the time of declaration in the service record vide Annexure P-6, which comes to November, 1954, therefore taking her date of birth as 7.3.1950 was incorrect. 3. The stand of the respondent-Corporation in reply is that the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.11.1954 reflected in the seniority list was a clerical - 3 - and inadvertent error. In fact, in the service book, her date of birth is mentioned as 7.3.1950. She was a Class-IV employee of the State Undertaking, thus she was to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years. When the error of date of birth was noticed, it was accordingly corrected in the subsequent seniority list. It is further submitted that at the time of joining, the petitioner while affixing her finger print in the first page of her service book her date of birth is recorded as 7.3.1950 which entry was acknowledged by her. Therefore, there is no question of treating her in service for four more years. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner gave her estimated age at the time of joining the service, but while preparing the service book, her date of birth is recorded as 7.3.1950 and there is no material on record to show that she took birth on 15.11.1954 as depicted in the seniority list, which was later correct and shown/ entered in the service record. No authenticated material has been produced by the petitioner on record to show that her date of birth is 7.3.1950. - 4 - 5. By now, it is well settled that the correction of date of birth of the Government servant, particularly at the fag end of his/her 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/ her 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. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Prem Lal Shrivas [(2011) 9 SCC 664] the Supreme Court observed 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, - 5 - 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 also Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh-(1993) 2 SCC 162, Home Department & Ors. Vs. R. Kirubakaran- 1994 Supp (1) SCC 155, and State of U.P. vs. Shiv Narain Upadhyaya- (2005) 6 SCC 49 and State of Haryana vs. Satish Mittal-AIR 2010 SC 3312}. 6. Thus, in my 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 petitioner, that too in view of the entries made in the service record, which supersedes the date of birth made in the seniority list inadvertently and contrary to it. Thus, the relief sought cannot be granted, hence the petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 19, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge .