IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 16313 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.11.2010 _____________________________________________________________ Jai Bahadur. ....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. .....Respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar. For the respondents: Mr. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. _____________________________________________________________ Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice (Oral): The petitioner has the following grievances:- i) he is entitled to be considered for the benefit under the decision of Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhayaya vs. State of H.P. ii) he is entitled to the benefit of the decision of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Sarab Dayal. iii) in case he is granted the benefit of decision in Mool Raj Upadhayaya, he would have been retired at the age of 60 years. 2. As far as the first submission is concerned, it is not seen from the reply that the grievance has been redressed in the light of the -2- decision of in Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case. The petitioner is entitled to conferment of the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001 on completion of 10 years service. If that be so, according to the petitioner, his retirement should have been only on completion of 60 years age. So far as benefit under Sarab Dayal's case is concerned, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Hence, the petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the respondents to look into the matter with reference to the factual background of the petitioner and take appropriate action with regard to the above submissions within a period of four months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. It is made clear that the benefit of Sarab Dayal's case will be granted only subject to the outcome of the appeal now pending before the Supreme Court. It is also made clear that in case, it is found that the petitioner is entitled, the consequential benefits, if any, shall be disbursed to him within another two months. 4. With the above observations, the petition is disposed, so also the pending application (s), if any. (Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice (V.K. Sharma) 11th November, 2010. Judge. (kck/lsp)