IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.8078 of 2019 Decided on: 09.01..2026.

_____________________________________________P___________

Jai Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sha rma, Judge

1Whether approved for reporting?. f For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral]

oPetitioner, Jai Ram, had initially filed an OriCginal Application i.e. OA No 3732 of 2016 before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.8078 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):

(a). That respondent be directed to allow the applicant to perform his duties until he attain the age of 60 years and order of retiring the applicant the age of 58 years be declared as illegal and unconstitutional.

(b). That the respondent may kindly be directed to act in accordance with law

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

and regularize the applicant with effect from 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and fixation of pension. P (c). The respondent may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of pay and other consequential benefits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”

2. At the very outset Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this petition, the relief (b) stands granted and therefore, relief (c) beinug ancillary to relief (b) above is not pressed, in instant proceedings.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The surviving grievance in relief 7(a) is has set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner gwas appointed as Daily Waged Beldar in IPH Sub-

Division Churag, District Mandi, in 1991 and he had completed 240 days of continuous service from 1992 onwards till 2003 and thereafter, as per the Mandays Chart [Annexure P-1]. It is averred that the services of petitioner were regularized on 23.01.2007 [Annexure P-2] and petitioner retired from Government service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.08.2016. As per Office Order dated

01.08.2016 [Taken on Record].

3(i). The grievance of the petitioner is that once the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in 1991 and had completed continuous service. from 1992 onwards and was regularized on 23.01.2007 [Annexure P-2] i.e. after 10.05.2001 therefore, as per the Notification issued by the State Authorities under Fundamental Rule 56, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years i.e. 31.08.2018. In the above backdrop, prayer is made for giving benefit of deemed continuation in service upto the age of 60 years, till 31.08.2018, with consequential benefits for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY-

AFFIDAVIT:

4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 04.08.2016, the State Authorities have filed a Reply- Affidavit dated 07.06.2017 of Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Sundar Nagar.

4(i). Reply-Affidavit does not dispute the factual matrix of the case.

It is further borne out from the Reply-

Affidavit that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the benefit of work charge status stands granted to the petitioner on 25.03.2008 [Annexure PR-I]. Reply-

Affidavit indicates that once the petitioner was a Class- VI Employee who were appointed on or after 10.05.2001 therefore, he was righ tly retired at the age of 58 years as per the Nootification dated 10.05.2001 [Annexure R-2]. Reply -Affidavit further indicates that instant petition suffers from delay and laches.

In this backdrop, the prayer is made for dismissinog the writ petition.

NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER:

5. Petitioner has not filed any rebuttal to hthe averments in the Reply-Affidavit but Learned gCounsel has contended that the subject matter as to whether part-time or daily waged employees who were appointed/engaged pr