JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral):- This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (CWP No.900 of 2012) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by the District Collector, Fatehabad removing him from the post of Lambardar; as well as the order dated 8.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner confirming the said order, was dismissed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order. 3. In this case, the appellant, who was appointed as Lambardar of village Suli Khera, Block Bhattu Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehabad on 14.1.1993, was ordered to be removed from the office on the ground that he had fraudulently got the Old Age Pension while claiming himself to be 61 years of age at that time. In fact, he was only 58 years of age at that time. The said illegality was established in an inquiry conducted by Sub Divisional Officer (C), Fatehabad while complying with the principles of natural justice. The learned Single Judge while considering all the material dismissed the writ petition, while observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was not aware of his date of birth. He was seriously ill and doctors told him about his age. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner had deposited the entire amount in the treasury as taken by him on account of old age pension. The argument is not sustainable. The petitioner is stated to be 9th class pass. It cannot be presumed that a person who had been pursuing study up to 9th class is not aware of his date of birth. The petitioner when applied for ration card in the year 2000, himself filled the form and mentioned his age as 50 years which also shatters the claim of the petitioner. Even otherwise the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence either before the revenue authorities or before this Court from where it can be presumed that the petitioner was rightly getting the Old Age Pension and was of 61 years of age at that time. Merely by saying that doctors had assessed his age as 61 years, is no ground. Even otherwise the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence either before the revenue authorities or before this Court from where it can be presumed that the petitioner was rightly getting the Old Age Pension and was of 61 years of age at that time. Merely by saying that doctors had assessed his age as 61 years, is no ground. The revenue authorities were right in holding that petitioner has intentionally mentioned his age more to get the Old Age Pension and has caused loss to the State exchequer and liable to be dismissed under Rule (ii) (F) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules.” 4. Before us, an argument has been raised that since the appellant had re-deposited the amount received by him as Old Age Pension, the harsh view should not have been taken. 5. We do not agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not expected of the Lambardar to do this kind of mischief. The Old Age Pension is only meant for old persons and the Lambardar of the village has to verify the particulars of such persons. If the Lambardar himself is doing such kind of mischief, then the very purpose of the Old Age Pension will be frustrated. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. ------------------------