IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7954 of 2008. Decided on: 18.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Nand Lal … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, A.A.G. ______________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner started discharging the duties of Beldar on daily wages basis with effect from 1978. He was not permitted to discharge his duties after 26.2.2001. It appears from the record that certain complaints were filed against the petitioner to the effect that his actual date of birth was 21.6.1948 and not 10.4.1938. He submitted Annexure A-1 whereby his date of birth has been recorded as 21.6.1948. The Assistant Engineer made a written request to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat to verify the date of birth of the petitioner vide letter dated 23.10.2000. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat supplied Annexure A-2. A bare perusal of Annexure A-2 reveals that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 10.4.1938. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Mr. K.B. Khajuria has strenuously argued that in fact the date of birth of his client is 10.8.1943 and neither 21.6.1948 nor 10.4.1938. This date of birth, i.e. 10.8.1943, according to him, has been recorded as per horoscope. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the basis of original record produced before the Court submits that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded 10.4.1938 as per Pariwar Register. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner has given his date of birth 21.6.1948 as per Annexure A-1. However, a bare perusal of the Pariwar Register produced by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General reveals that his date of birth is 10.4.1938. There is presumption of truth attached to the record prepared by the Gram Panchayat. The matter was looked into by the authorities of the respondent- Department. It was only on the basis of the complaints that the Assistant Engineer has written a letter to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat on 23.10.2000. He has supplied copy of Annexure A-2 to the Department. The matter was also looked into by the Junior Engineer to ascertain the date of birth of the petitioner. According to the inquiry conducted by the Junior Engineer, the date of birth of his younger brother has been recorded as 8.2.1940. The petitioner could work till the age of 60 years. As per discussion made hereinabove, his date of birth has been correctly recorded as 10.4.1938 and the action of the respondent of not permitting him to work beyond 60 years of age is valid. 3 Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. The record after perusal was returned. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 18, 2009. (cr)