Himachal Pradesh High Court
Krishan Dutt vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 6 January, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RSA No.1 of 2026
.
Date of Decision : 06.01.2026
Krishan Dutt
...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and another
of
......Respondents
Coram:
rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.22-N/13 of 2025, titled Krishan Dutt vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.46/1 of 2022, have been affirmed.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2026 20:33:28 :::CIS 22. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were .
referred before learned Trial Court.
3. The plaintiff, presently serving as a Foreman in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (HPSEB), had instituted a Civil Suit, seeking a declaration that his date of birth recorded as 27.07.1968 in the of Parivar Register of Gram Panchayat Nehli Dheera was incorrect, and that his date of birth as per his school leaving certificate, being 20.03.1969, was correct. The plaintiff averred that he discovered the alleged rt discrepancy in the Panchayat record upon visiting the office of the Panchayat Secretary. His subsequent requests for correction, including a legal notice dated 21.09.2021, were not acceded to by the defendants.
The suit, therefore, sought the said declaration and a consequential relief for correction of the Parivar Register. It is significant to note that the pleadings did not disclose the plaintiff's status as a government servant, nor was his employer impleaded as a party to the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants, who raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, concealment of material facts, estoppel, lack of cause of action, and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was contended that Panchayat records are primary, school admissions are based thereon, and the suit was motivated by a desire to secure service benefits.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 28.04.2023:
"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration, as prayed for?....OPP ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2026 20:33:28 :::CIS 3
2. Whether present suit of plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged?...OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged?....OPD .
4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts from this court, as alleged?...OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence, as alleged?...OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?.. OPD of
7. Relief."
5. The plaintiff led evidence, while the defendants led none.
rt Vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2024, learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 6 in the negative and issues Nos. 3 and 5 in the affirmative, resulting in the dismissal of the suit.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred a first appeal. In the first appeal, the appellant/plaintiff contended that the Trial Court's judgment was based on surmises and conjectures, and that it failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence, particularly the school leaving certificate showing the date of birth as 20.03.1969 against the Parivar Register entry of 27.07.1968. He prayed for the appeal to be allowed and the impugned judgment to be set aside. The First Appellate Court, upon consideration however dismissed the appeal. Hence, the plaintiff has now filed the present second appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments.
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2026 20:33:28 :::CIS 48. The core contention of the plaintiff is that the entry in the school leaving certificate, being 20.03.1969, is correct and should prevail .
over the entry of 27.07.1968 in the Parivar Register. However, a crucial and admitted fact is that the plaintiff is a government servant, serving as a Foreman in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. This material fact was conspicuously absent from the plaint, and his employer was not of impleaded as a necessary party to the suit. The suit was instituted at the fag end of his service career, ostensibly seeking a correction in the Panchayat record, but the inescapable and ultimate objective is to seek a rt consequential benefit in his service record to alter the date of his superannuation.
9. The legal position on such belated claims for correction of date of birth by government servants is well-settled. As consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated by this Court in precedents such as Kala Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors., passed in CWP No.682 of 2020 dated 02.06.2020, a government servant is governed by the relevant service rules, including provisions like Fundamental Rule 56 and the Himachal Pradesh Financial Rules, which mandate that requests for correction of date of birth must be made within a stipulated period, typically within two to five years of entry into service. Entertaining such claims on the eve of retirement is impermissible as it disrupts service administration, affects the legitimate expectations of juniors regarding promotions, and amounts to sleeping over one's rights. No Court can ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2026 20:33:28 :::CIS 5 come to the aid of a party who raises such a dispute after an inordinate and unexplained delay.
.
10. In my considered view, the plaintiff's attempt to circumvent these established principles by omitting his status as a government servant and by not impleading his employer, who is a vitally necessary party for adjudicating the real controversy, is fatal to his case. The learned of Trial Court correctly appreciated the evidence and the applicable law in dismissing the suit. The First Appellate Court, upon a reconsideration of these aspects, rightly rt affirmed the dismissal. Consequently, no interference is warranted in this second appeal.
11. In view of the aforesaid, no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
January 06, 2026 (KS) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2026 20:33:28 :::CIS