IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5470 of 2008. Decided on: October 19, 2010. Itwari Lal ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Dhruv Shaunak, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner approached this Court seeking correction of date of birth. In the reply, at paragraph 6 (iii), it is stated as follows: “6 (iii). That the applicant has alleged two date of birth one 13.6.1941 and second 11.9.1934. The applicant should first be assured which date he intends to adopt. It is unthinkable that the family which is highly educated would be careless regarding the date of birth. The date of birth of an employee cannot be changed at his/her sweet will. There are rules and instructions governing correction in the date of birth. In this connection Note-6 below F.R. 56 and Rule 7.1 of Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules. Besides this there are catena of judicial decisions, wherein, it has been held that it is not proper to correct the date of birth after a gap of over 20 years. Moreover, the date of birth is recorded in the service book on the basis of documentary evidence authenticated by the applicant and accepted by the employer. Therefore, correction of date of birth at this belated stage i.e. of over 20 years and after the retirement on attaining the age of superannuation is not maintainable.” 2 2. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the petitioner had earlier filed an application and the same was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an opportunity to make representation before the government since according to the petitioner in case of similarly situated persons, the request for correction of date of birth had been granted. Be that as it may. In view of the request made by the petitioner to make a representation before the government, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner files representation before the first respondent, the same shall be considered in accordance with law within another four months. 3. The Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice October 19, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh ), (karan) Judge.