Three Himachal Pradesh High Court decisions explain why belated efforts to change a recorded date of birth fail, when an employee may challenge a colleague’s ACR grading, and why a commissioning mother cannot be denied maternity leave merely because the child was born through surrogacy.
Today’s Must-Read
1. A service-record date of birth cannot be changed after the prescribed period
State of H.P. & Others v. Suresh Kumar & Another, RSA No. 277 of 2010, 2026:HHC:34123; decided on 13 August 2026.
The employee sought correction of his date of birth in the service record after expiry of the prescribed two-year period. The Court held that the time limit could not be bypassed on equitable grounds. It allowed the State’s second appeal, set aside the appellate decree permitting correction and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit.
Headnote: Service law—Date of birth—Correction of service record—Limitation prescribed by service rules—A request made after expiry of the prescribed two-year period cannot be entertained merely on equitable considerations; the recorded date of birth remains binding where the employee did not invoke the prescribed procedure within time.
2. An employee ordinarily cannot challenge a colleague’s ACR grading
Dr. Mukesh Surya v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No. 5569 of 2020, 2026:HHC:32740-DB; decided on 5 August 2026.
The petitioner questioned another employee’s ACR gradings and the resulting assessment by the Departmental Promotion Committee because they affected his own promotion prospects. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that he lacked standing to assail his colleague’s confidential gradings. Delay and laches also operated against the challenge.
Headnote: Service law—Annual Confidential Reports—Departmental Promotion Committee—Locus standi—An employee ordinarily has no standing to challenge the ACR grading awarded to a colleague merely because that grading affects comparative promotion prospects; a delayed challenge is additionally vulnerable to dismissal on the ground of laches.
3. A commissioning mother is entitled to maternity leave after surrogacy
Dr. Juhi Manhas v. State of H.P. & Others, CWP No. 14883 of 2025, 2026:HHC:32083; decided on 3 August 2026.
The petitioner was denied maternity leave because she became a mother through surrogacy. The Court held that a commissioning mother was entitled to maternity leave under the CCS (Leave) Rules as applicable in Himachal Pradesh. It quashed the denial orders, directed that both periods of 180 days be treated as maternity leave and ordered release of the withheld salary.
Headnote: Service law—Maternity leave—Surrogacy—Commissioning mother—A commissioning mother is entitled to maternity leave under the applicable CCS (Leave) Rules; maternity protection cannot be denied solely because the child was born through surrogacy. Orders refusing leave are liable to be quashed, with consequential treatment of the sanctioned periods as maternity leave and release of withheld salary.
Bottom line
Suresh Kumar reinforces the strict time limit governing correction of a date of birth in service records; Dr. Mukesh Surya confines an employee’s right to challenge comparative service assessments; and Dr. Juhi Manhas applies maternity protection to commissioning motherhood after surrogacy.
Browse the permanent Himachal Law Digest archive.
Prepared by the LawUmbrella Legal Research Desk. This digest is for legal information and research. Readers should consult the official judgments and obtain case-specific advice where required.
Share: #HimachalPradeshHighCourt #HimachalLawJournal #ServiceLaw #DateOfBirth #ACR #DepartmentalPromotionCommittee #MaternityLeave #Surrogacy
LawUmbrella 