IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9755/2008 Reserved on: 14.12.2010 Decided on:31.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Basanta. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis. He was conferred with work charge status with effect from 1.4.1998, vide appointment letter dated 19.6.2000. He had submitted documents, including date of birth certificate, showing his date of birth, as 5.10.1943. In service book, petitioner’s date of birth was recorded as 5.10.1943. This date has been certified by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat vide Annexure RA. This certificate was issued on 24.3.2000. Petitioner has retired on 31.10.2003. Case of the petitioner, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 in a nutshell, is that his date of birth is 10.7.1951, as per Kundli. 2. Mr. L.N. has strenuously argued that petitioner has filed affidavit before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Theog seeking change in date of birth from 5.10.1943 to 10.7.1951. According to him, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has issued instructions on 3.7.2002, pursuant to which corrections were carried out in the Pariwar Register and the date of birth was changed to 10.7.1951. The affidavit placed on record is not duly attested either by the Oath Commissioner or Sub Divisional Magistrate, Theog. Petitioner was aware of his date of birth at the time when work charge status was conferred upon him. The exercise undertaken by the petitioner seeking change in date of birth belatedly is an after thought. Since the petitioner himself has given his date of birth on the basis of which entry in service record was made, he has rightly been retired after attaining the age of 60 years, on the basis of date of birth recorded as 5.10.1943. 3. Accordingly, in view of the observations 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 31.12. 2010 *awasthi*