IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 16389 of 2008. Decided on: 22nd November, 2010. Kali Dass …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) According to the petitioner, his case is covered by the decision of this Court in CWP(T) No. 16387 of 2008, titled Kaushalya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others, text of which reads as follows:- “The petitioner on completion of 58 years of age ought to have retired from service in November, 2005. But, it appears owing to inadvertent mistake in notifying the date, the same was notified as per Annexure A-3 as 30th November, 2007. On account of the said Annexure A-3, order, the petitioner continued in service and she was relieved only on 19.1.2007. There cannot be a serious dispute that under law, the petitioner is entitled to continue only upto the completion of 58 years of age. Therefore, for all service purposes, the date of retirement shall be taken as completion of 58 years only. But the fact remains that the petitioner has actually worked beyond that age and she was relieved only as per Annexure A-4 dated 19.1.2007. Therefore, it will be 2 highly unjust to recover the amounts, which were paid by way of wages, though such service is after the due date of retirement. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of making it clear that there shall not be any recovery of the actual wages paid to the petitioner beyond the completion of 58 years of age. For all other service benefits, the date shall be taken as completion of 58 years only. The benefits, as above, shall be settled, if not already settled within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.” 2. Since the petitioner herein claims that he is also similarly situated person, therefore, there will be direction to the first respondent to examine the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment extracted above and take appropriate action in accordance with law within four months from the date of production of copy of this judgment alongwith copy of writ petition. 3. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice November 22, 2010 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (SDS/BSS) Judge.