ORDER : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the issuance of communication, dated 20.4.2016 (Annexure A-1), issued under the signatures of Deputy Commissioner, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, whereby respondents while regularizing the services of the petitioner as Revenue Chowkidar in Patwar Circle, Rajali Banyala, reflected his date of retirement as 30.6.2016, petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 3078 of 2016, which now stands transferred to this Court after abolishment of erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal and stands registered as CWPOA No. 7778 of 2019, praying therein following reliefs:- "(i) That the impugned office order dated 20.04.2016(Annexure A-1) may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may kindly be restrained from retiring the applicant from the services on 30.06.2016. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the applicant to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation i.e. 30.06.2022. (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to regularize the services of the applicant w.e.f. 01.04.2012 with all consequential benefits like arrears etc." 2. Certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Chowkidar at Patwar Circle, Rajali Banyala on part time basis in the year 1990. Since, despite petitioner having rendered ten years services on part time basis, respondents failed to convert his part time services into the contract as per the policy, dated 27.2.2004 formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, he filed CWP No. 9451 of 2011, titled as Gurdas Ram v. State of H.P. & another, seeking therein direction to the respondents to convert his part time services into contract in terms of the policy framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Aforesaid writ petition having been filed by the petitioner came to be decided on 4.11.2011, whereby direction was issued to the second respondent/competent authority to look into the matter and take appropriate action in the case of the petitioner, on verification of facts, in the light of the policy, within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of the judgment. 3. 3. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, petitioner represented to the competent authority for conversion of his services from part time to daily waged Chowkidar, but fact remains that no action, if any, ever came to be taken at the behest of the respondents for good five years after passing of aforesaid judgment by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 9451 of 2011. 4. Vide order dated 20.4.2016 (Annexure A-1), Deputy Commissioner, Una, District Una, H.P., regularized the services of the petitioner as Revenue Chowkidar in the pay Band of ` 4900-10680 + 1300/- Grade Pay with effect from the date joining was accepted, but since in the aforesaid communication date of retirement of the petitioner was shown to be 30.6.2016, he approached court of law in the instant petition, praying therein to restrain the respondents from retiring him from the service on 30.6.2016. Petitioner claimed in the petition that his date of birth has been shown wrongly as 01.07.1958, whereas he was born in the year 1964. Learned Tribunal below while issuing notice to the respondent-State vide order dated 30.06.2016, restrained the respondents from superannuating the petitioner from the service till further orders and since then on the strength of the afore order passed by learned Tribunal, petitioner is continuing to serve the Department. 5. Since, there was a dispute inter se petitioner and the respondents qua Date of Birth of the petitioner, allegedly, respondents No. 2 and 3, asked the petitioner to get opinion from the Medical Board with regard to his age. Medical Board comprising of Chief Medical Officer, Una and two more doctors opined that age of the petitioner is 44 to 46 years (Annexure A-2) and as such, petitioner claimed before the authorities that he be allowed to continue in service till 2022. 6. Aforesaid claim of the petitioner has been refuted by the respondents by way of detailed reply, wherein it has been categorically stated that there was no occasion, if any, for the authorities to call for the report of Medical Board, especially when petitioner himself at the time of his joining in the department had furnished copy of Pariwar Register, wherein his Date of Birth has been shown to be 1958. Besides above, on 26.04.2016, petitioner himself executed an affidavit, stating therein his age to be 57 years, as is evident from Annexure A-V annexed with the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. If the Date of Birth of the petitioner was not 57 years in the year, 2016, it is not understood that why petitioner in his affidavit executed in the year 2016 mentioned his date of birth as 57 years. Aforesaid affidavit placed on record by the respondents has been not disputed by the petitioner and as such, there is reason to presume and believe that on 26.04.2016, age of the petitioner was 57 years and as such, date of birth has been rightly recorded as 1958 in the service record. 7. Though, learned counsel representing the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the opinion rendered by Medical Board (Annexure A-2), but that cannot override the entry made in the Pariwar Register, copy whereof is placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-2/I. Once, date of birth of petitioner stands recorded as 1958 in the Pariwar Register, otherwise there was no occasion for the authorities to call for the opinion of the Medical Board. Since, specific date and month has been not mentioned in the Pariwar Register containing date of birth of the petitioner, respondents rightly placed reliance upon the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 and considered the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.7.1958 (Annexure R/2-3) annexed with the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. 8. Having carefully perused the documents placed on record, especially copies of Pariwar Register and affidavit executed by the petitioner, this Court finds no force in the claim of the petitioner that his Date of Birth was 1964. 9. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed. Since, it is not in dispute that pursuant to order dated 30.6.2016, passed by learned Tribunal below, petitioner is still continuing to serve the department in the capacity of Revenue Chowkidar, he is entitled to be given basic pay of the post in question. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.