IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 11626/2008 Reserved on: 21.4.2011 Decided on:29.4. 2011 _____________________________________________ Nanku. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Mason on daily wage basis in the month of February, 1992. He recorded his date of birth in muster roll in the year 1996 as 23.4.1944. He again got his date of birth recorded in the muster roll of 2001 as 23.4.1944. However, in the year 2003, he claimed that his date of birth was 5.12.1950. Respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner to explain the true position on 28.4.2004. Petitioner relied upon affidavit dated 27.4.2004 and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Annexure P-2, i.e. copy of Pariwar register, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner has been changed from 23.4.1944 to 5.12.1950. Respondents, on the basis of earlier date of birth, i.e. 23.4.1944, retired the petitioner on 30.4.2004. It is evident from Annexure P-2 that initially the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 23.4.1944. However, the same has been subsequently added as 5.12.1950. The date of birth of the petitioner’s younger brother, namely, Sunder Lal, as per Annexure R-IV, is 5.3.1940. Petitioner has not explained on what basis his date of birth has been changed from 23.4.1944 to 5.12.1950 by the concerned Gram Panchayat. Petitioner, as noticed above, initially has also given his date of birth in the years 1996 and 2001 as 23.4.1944. Thus, it is evident that in Annexure P-2 the date of birth has been changed by fabricating the Pariwar register. Annexure P-1 is also based on the fabricated entry made in Annexure P-2. In case the date of birth of the petitioner was 5.12.1950, as claimed by him, he should have given this date of birth in the year 1992 at the time of his engagement or in the year 1996 or 2001. 2. Consequently, the petitioner has rightly been retired from service on 30.4.2004 after attaining the age of superannuation. 3 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 29.4. 2011 *awasthi*