IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 7807 of 2008. Decided on: 15.05.2009. Smt Bohri Devi. … … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate vice counsel for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The petitioner was regularised as work-charged Beldar vide office order dated 10.3.1998 after completion of 10 years. She joined her duties on 17.3.1998. She submitted her date of birth certificate alongwith other documents as per the requirement of regularization order. The birth certificate was issued by Gram Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Panchayat/Development Officer (Secretary), Kothi. Her date of birth was shown as 1946. She was retired with effect from 30.6.2001. Mr. K.B. Khajuria has strenuously argued that as per Panchayat record, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1946 and his client could not be retired on 30.6.2001. He has referred to the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat, Kothi. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the basis of the documents obtained from the concerned Gram Panchayat submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was 1941 and not 1946. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The petitioner was regularised after completion of 10 years. She has submitted Annexure A-2 at the time of her regularization. In this the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 1946 with an endorsement that there is some overwriting in this entry and according to old register the date of birth of the petitioner is 1941. The respondents have placed on record the copies of the original record obtained from the concerned Gram Panchayat. As per these documents the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 1941, however, there is overwriting and figure 1941 has been changed to 1946. In order to resolve what is the actual date of birth of the petitioner, the original Panchayat record was directed to be produced. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has produced the original record. It is apparent from the original record that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1941 and not 1946 as argued by Mr. Khajuria. Mr. Khajuria then argued that the record was in possession of the Panchayat and his client is not responsible for - 3 - overwriting/tampering with the entry. This plea of Mr. Khajuria cannot be accepted. In case there is overwriting/tampering with the entries in the original record, it could be only at the behest of the person who would be benefited by this act. Consequently, it is held that the date of birth of the petitioner is 1941 and not 1946. She has rightly been retired vide Annexure A-1 by treating her date of birth as 1941. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. May 15, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.