CWP(T) No. 6738 of 2008 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. D. S. Nainta, Advocate, vice Mr. G. D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Petitioner was appointed as L.V.D.C. and she joined the office of the Block Development Officer Mashobra on 17.1.1997. There was a dispute with regard to her exact date of birth. She made a representation on 1.8.1998 for correction of the record maintained by the respondents. This fact is evident from the representation dated 16.1.1999 (Annexure A-2) wherein she again requested for rectification of the record. According to the petitioner her date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate as 11.3.1976 is incorrect. She was actually born on 11.7.1976. There is no dispute that petitioner’s representation was not decided. She also served a legal notice dated 13.9.1999 (Annexure A-3) for correction of her record which request was also not acceded to. In fact respondents took no action and consequently petitioner was constrained to file the instant petition. 2. The defence taken by the respondents is that the petitioner’s request for rectification of the record with respect to her date of birth is belated as in terms of Rule 7.1 of HPFR petitioner was required to make representation within a period of two years from the date of entry in service record. She made a request only on 16.1.1999. 3. The stand taken by the respondents is obviously contrary to the record. The request was made as early as on 1.8.1998 and the -2- respondents failed to take any action. Annexure A-2 was only a reminder. 4. Consequently the present petition needs to be allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents to verify the documents filed by the petitioner showing her correct date of birth to be 11.7.1976 and if found to be correct then thereafter make necessary correction in the record. 5. Consequential action be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. If required, it is open for the petitioner to place additional material before the authorities. 6. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 13, 2010 (PK)