IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 4205/2008 Decided on:23.4.2010 _____________________________________________ Premi Devi and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. A.K. Dhiman and Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate vice Mr. Sandeep Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). 1. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, deceased Shankar Ram (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for convenience sake) was engaged on daily wage basis as Peon in respondent No.2-Nagar Panchayat on 6.3.1979. He furnished affidavit before the respondents dated 21.3.1995 whereby he has given his date of birth as 13.4.1942. Respondents got the matter inquired and it transpired that the actual date of birth is 1926, as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 per the records maintained by respondent No.2-Nagar Panchayat. The services of the petitioner were terminated as per office order dated 13.9.1996 with effect from 30.9.1996. The petitioner died in the year 2004 and his legal representatives, present petitioners, were brought on record. 2. Mr. A.K. Dhiman has vehemently argued that regular inquiry should have been held before terminating the services of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner was engaged only on daily wage basis. The inquiry was conducted by the respondents and it was found that the affidavit given by him was contrary to records maintained by Nagar Panchayat, Ghumarwin. The date of birth of the petitioner, as per records maintained by the Nagar Panchayat, Ghumarwin, is 1926. Petitioner has not placed any tangible material on record to establish that his date of birth was 13.4.1942 and not 1926. Close scrutiny of affidavit also reveals that there is over-writing in para 3 of the affidavit. The affidavit cannot form substantive piece of evidence. Moreover, the affidavit has not been sworn in before any competent authority. 4. Mr. A.K. Dhiman has also argued that the petitioners are entitled to family pension. There is no merit in this submission. Petitioner has worked only on daily wage basis for seventeen years and even after counting half of his service, pension/family pension cannot be directed to be granted to the petitioners. The petitioner was never regularized. 3 5. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 23.4.2010 *awasthi*