129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 08.10.2025 Mam Chand ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. R.S. Dhull, Advocate and Mr. Navnit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (through V.C.).

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Parmar, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the petitioner’s date of birth in the service record from 06.09.1967 to 06.09.1969 and a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from retiring the petitioner on

30.09.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was appointed on a regular basis on 05.05.1997. His genuine date of birth is 06.09.1969, as evidenced by his Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID, and even the identity card issued by the department itself (Annexure P-1). He submits that the petitioner was never intimated about the wrong entry of his date of birth as `06.09.1967` in his service book and only became aware of it when the process for his retirement on 30.09.2025 was initiated. He places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon’b’le Supreme Court in Mohd.

Yunus Khan vs. U.P Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors 2009 (1) SCC 80, to contend that an employee cannot be faulted for a wrong entry of which he had no knowledge.

3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Finance Department Notification dated 13.08.2001, specifically Paragraph 1 thereof, stipulates a mandatory and conclusive time limit. He submits that a declaration of age made at the time of entry into service is deemed conclusive unless an application for correction is made within two years from the date of entry. He further submits that the petitioner entered service in 1997 and has approached the Court at the fag end of his service, nearly three decades later, which is impermissible under the statutory rules.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The sole question for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the correction of his date of birth at this belated stage, after being entering into service for over two and half decades.

6. The Haryana Government Finance Department (Regulation) Notification dated 13.08.2001, which has statutory force, provides a complete answer, para 1 of the section 2 (i) of Notification reads as under:

"1. In regard to the date of birth a declaration of age made at the time of, or for the purpose of entry into Government Service, shall as against the Government employee in question, be deemed to be conclusive unless he applied for correction of his age as recorded within two years from the date of his entry into Government service. No application submitted beyond the stipulated period of two years for change in date of birth will be entertained..." (Emphasis added)

7. The language of the rule is unambiguous and brooks no exception. The petitioner entered the government service on an ad-hoc basis on 01.03.1992 who later got regularized on 05.05.1997. The stipulated period of two years for seeking any correction expired on 01.03.1994 itself, as though on an ad-hoc basis but it was his entry into Government Service. The petitioner's representation, which forms the basis of this petition, was made only in 2025, on the eve of his retirement. This is clearly beyond the period prescribed by the applicable regulation.

8. A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors. 2024 INSC 264 which speaking through Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah made the following observation, 20. Although, we have examined the matter from the lens of fraud as well, i