Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) Heard. 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking following reliefs:- “(i)That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order, thereby directing the respondent authorities to correct the date of birth of petitioner in his service record as 10/12/1966, forthwith. (ii)That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. The facts as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner's actual date of birth is 10.12.1966, which is recorded in the school records of petitioner. The date of birth of petitioner is also recorded as 10.12.1966 in Adhar Card, PAN Card as well as in his birth certificate. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Labour in the respondent no.1 department, but due to mistake of the department, the date of birth of petitioner has been incorrectly recorded in his service record as 10.12.1962. On the basis of request of the petitioner, the date of birth of petitioner was corrected as 10.12.1966 in Service Proforma. As the date of birth of petitioner has not been corrected in service book of petitioner, therefore the petitioner has made an application for correction of date of birth recorded in his service record on 15.07.2009, but no such correction has been made. Thereafter, on 10.02.2012, 15.07.2012, 15.01.2013 and 18.10.2021 the petitioner has filed application for correction of his date of birth as 10.12.1966 in his service record, but till date no such correction of his date of birth has been made in his service record. Hence this petition has been filed. 3. Thereafter, on 10.02.2012, 15.07.2012, 15.01.2013 and 18.10.2021 the petitioner has filed application for correction of his date of birth as 10.12.1966 in his service record, but till date no such correction of his date of birth has been made in his service record. Hence this petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that so far as remaining service of four years is concerned, he is leaving claim for two years of service but the petitioner may be granted benefit of service of two years as apparently his date of birth has wrongly been mentioned in the service record and right from beginning he has made various objections and applications for correction of his date of birth, several other employees whose date of birth has been wrongly written in the service records they have made applications and their applications were considered and the authorities were directed to correct their date of birth which he has filed along with covering memo, as such, the petition may be allowed in the terms as prayed for. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the said submissions made by the petitioner and it has been argued that the petitioner has not made any effort for correction of his date of birth right from the beginning, he is a higher secondary passed person and as such he is having knowledge about the correction of his date of birth, he should have approached the authorities within three months as prescribed under the law but he has not approached the same, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Autar Singh Yadav v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 993 choose to brush aside a delay of about 37 years in approaching the Hon'ble High Court and held as follows; "21. Taking a cue from the above, we can safely conclude that the foremost factor based whereon relief could be declined in a case of unexplained delay and laches is the accrual of a parallel right in favour of a third party. The other vital factor to be borne in mind is whether grant of relief in a belated claim is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience like unsettling matters which have long settled. The other vital factor to be borne in mind is whether grant of relief in a belated claim is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience like unsettling matters which have long settled. Relief could also be denied if by reason of the delay, the official respondents are hopelessly inconvenienced in defending their action for lack of the relevant records and to establish their defence to the full satisfaction of the court. 22. In the present case, neither is there accrual of any parallel right of a third party nor could grant of relief cause confusion and public inconvenience. There has also been no occasion for the State authorities to claim that they are in any manner handicapped to defend their action. On the contrary, this is a case where the appellant sought to explain the belated approach by referring to his repeated unyielding persuasions, which the High Court brushed aside mechanically, without appreciating that the appellant had invoked its writ jurisdiction for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. When a litigant approaches a high court invoking its high prerogative writ jurisdiction with a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the impugned State action is in breach of his Fundamental Right and claims that the breach be bridged by issuing appropriate writ/order/direction as distinguished from a claim for enforcement of a statutory right, it partakes the character of a duty on the part of such high court to enforce the right breached as the guardian of the Constitution. Law is well-settled that there is no loss of a Fundamental Right for non- exercise thereof and also that there cannot be waiver of a Fundamental Right Hence, no argument can commend acceptance that a litigant seeking enforcement of his Fundamental Right should be declined relief in all cases of a belated approach. Law is well-settled that there is no loss of a Fundamental Right for non- exercise thereof and also that there cannot be waiver of a Fundamental Right Hence, no argument can commend acceptance that a litigant seeking enforcement of his Fundamental Right should be declined relief in all cases of a belated approach. Notwithstanding delay, which might not have been explained to the full satisfaction of a high court, we hold that in cases where a high court finds that facts, as they have been presented, are not seriously disputed, no further investigation into facts is required to be made, the relief claimed in the petition was otherwise due to the writ petitioner and the same would have followed as a matterof course and been granted had he approached the high court without delay, it would be iniquitous and inappropriate to deny relief for no better reason than that the relief has been belatedly claimed.” 7. After considering the rival submissions and considering the judgment which has been pressed into service by the petitioner in the case of Ram Autar Singh Yadav (supra) the delay which has been occurred is duly explained and looking to the nature of work performed by the petitioner, the delay as caused by him cannot be taken as a sole ground to dismiss the petition. Further looking to the fact that the similarly situated persons whose date of birth has been wrongly mentioned in the service record has been directed to be corrected, as such, I am of the view that the petition is to be allowed and the date of birth mentioned in the service record is required to be corrected as the correct date of birth is 10/12/1966 which is clearly indicated in the mark sheet of matriculation issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. However, the petitioner is not entitled to get service benefits of four years as the petitioner is willing to get the service benefits of only for two years. He has retired way back on 31 st December, 2022. The respondent authorities are directed to give him the service benefits as per order passed by this Court. The period of two years as concided by the petitioner will be limited only in respect of salary and back wages of the petitioner, so far as seniority and other service benefits are concerned, it will remain intact. 8. The respondent authorities are directed to give him the service benefits as per order passed by this Court. The period of two years as concided by the petitioner will be limited only in respect of salary and back wages of the petitioner, so far as seniority and other service benefits are concerned, it will remain intact. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed.