IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5279 of 2010. Date of decision: 13.6.2011. Kamal Dev Puri … Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. ______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur,Addl. AG. For the respondents No. 2 & 3: Mrs. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to correct his date of birth in the service record according to the amended matriculation certificate. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner joined service in the year 1982 and at the time of joining of service he had produced his matriculation certificate and his date of birth was shown as 7.2.1952. According to the petitioner, this date (date of birth) was incorrectly recorded in his Higher Secondary Part-I examination issued by Punjab University and his correct date of birth is 7.2.1954. The petitioner has not given any explanation in the petition as to why he did not make any representation to his employer from 1982 when he joined the department till 1998 when his date of birth was corrected by the Punjab University. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : 3. It is no doubt true that the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected in the year 1998, but the fact is that the petitioner for 16 long years did not raise any dispute about his date of birth with the department. According to the petitioner he made a representation in this regard some time in the year 2001, but copy of the representation has not been placed on record. However, the first representation placed on record is dated February, 2002 in which he has clearly prayed that he may be given benefit of the certificate issued by Punjab University. Thereafter the petitioner kept representing and sending reminders. He, in fact, superannuated from service in the month of February, 2010 and it was only thereafter in August, 2010 that he filed this petition. 4. No person can be permitted to sleep over his rights. Here is a person who for 16 long years did not rake up any dispute with the department. Even after his date of birth was corrected he sent his first representation in the year 2002 and thereafter kept sending reminders and did not care to approach the Court/Tribunal till he stood retired from service. 5. In my view this petition has to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches itself, because allowing of the writ petition would be giving wages for the period he had not even worked. Public interest must outweigh private interest. Therefore, the petition is rejected. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 13th June, 2011 (Krn Guleria)