IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11880 of 2008. Decided on: 06.01.2011. Kidarnath Sharma. …Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate vice Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Male Health Worker at Sub-Centre Barram (Kangra) on 12.06.2002. He was informed vide letter dated 11.02.2005 that he will superannuate on 30.04.2005. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he should have been given two years’ extension. 2. Case of the respondent-State precisely is that the petitioner’s representation was duly considered and was rejected on 21.03.2005 (Annexure R-2/I. 3. Petitioner has failed to substantiate under what law or regulation, he was entitled to seek extension beyond the age of superannuation. In view of this, there is no illegality in the letter dated 21.03.2005, whereby the case of the petitioner for extension has been rejected. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 06, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 -