ORDER :

1. The writ petitioner was conferred, the status of a work charge employee, under the respondents, in the year 2002. However, she claimed that she was to be regularized in the year (supra), whereas she became regularized in the year 2007. Moreover, the writ petitioner has superannuated from service in the year 2012. Therefore the writ petitioner, through the instant petition, has canvassed the granting to her, the afore relief alongwith the relief, of hers being bestowed the benefit of Annexure A-7, wherein, class IV daily wagers engaged prior to 2001 i.e. when an earlier notification, limiting the age of class IV employees, was reduced from 60 to 58 years, was made, rather a prescription being embodied, that daily wagers (supra) will cease in the employment, at the age of 60 years, whereas, daily wagers deployed after reduction of age limit in the year 2001, will superannuate on theirs attaining the age of 58 years.

2. Annexure A-7 has been drawn on 22.2.2010, and, it prescribes therein, that only class IV daily wager engaged prior to 2001, would become entitled to be superannuated, at the age of 60 years, whereas those daily wager who became deployed after 2001, will superannuate at the age of 58 years. Even though, the afore narrations carried in Annexure A-7, do assuredly constrain this Court, to, make the interpretation (supra), vis-à-vis them. However, the learned Deputy Advocate General has contended, with much vigour before this Court, that the afore interpretation, as, made to the afore echoing, carried in Annexure A-7, is incorrect, as, the Principal Division Bench of this Court, while being seized with an alike Annexure rather proceeded to through a verdict made on 22.11.2011 upon an alike controversy as carried in LPA No. 298 of 2011, has made a contra interpretation thereto, in as much as, in the relevant paragraph 2 thereof, which becomes extracted hereinafter, an inference has been made, that only when the writ petitioner(s) therein entered regular service before 10.5.2001, thereupon they would become entitled to continue in service, up to, the age of 60 years. However the afore interpretation, as, becomes relied, upon by the learned Deputy Advocate General, and, appertaining to the afore echoing(s) carried in Annexure A-7, and, as similar to the echoings as become carried in A-2, as became enclosed with LPA (supra), are clearly beyond the ambit, and, the apposite signification to be meted to them, in as much as, irrespective of regularization in service of daily waged workman, the benefit of theirs continuing in service up to the age of 60 years, became bestowed upon the daily rated workman concerned. However, with a rider that their engagement in a daily wage capacity occurring prior to 2001. Since the writ petitioner, was engaged as a daily wager prior to 2001, and became regularized in 2007, and, prior thereto work charge status, became conferred upon her in the year 2002. Therefore, dehors the benefit of regularization becoming bestowed, upon her, in the year 2007 yet she became completely covered, within the echoings carried in Annexure A-7, which are like the one as become carried, in Annexure A-2 enclosed in LPA (supra), as apposite echoing (supra), do confer the completest right in the daily waged workmen, who entered in service prior to 2001, to continue in employment under their employee, up to the age of 60 years.

“Learned Single Judge in the judgment under appeal has followed LPA No. 196 of 2010, which is no more a good law in view of the position under law that being a judgment rendered per in curium it has no precedential value and it is no more binding. As far as the facts of the case of the petitioner are concerned, it is an admitted fact that he had entered regular service only in the year 2007, though he was on daily waged service prior to 2001. Only in case the writ petitioner entered regular service before 10.5.2001, he would be entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years.”

3. Even o