IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ----- L.P.A. No. 23 of 2013 ----- Yadunandan Ram .... .... .... .... Appellant Versus Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi & Ors. .... .... .... .... Respondents ----- CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, Advocate ----- Order No.03 Dated, 5 th March, 2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-petitioner was a contractual appointee in the Department of State of Government. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer in response to the Advertisement No. 27 of 2012 dated 31.03.2012, whereunder it has been provided that permanent government employee or a temporary government employee will be having the benefit of five years age relaxation. The petitioner's contention before the learned Single Judge was that the petitioner, since was employee of the government department, therefore, under the advertisement, he was entitle to five years age relaxation. However, learned Single Judge rejected the said contention of the petitioner, hence this L.P.A. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3780 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the word “employee” held that the “employee” includes both permanent or temporary, regular or short term as well as employee who has been engaged on contractual or ad hoc basis. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner being the employee was eligible for age relaxation in terms of Advertisement No. 27 of 2012. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant referred above in the case of Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors. (Supra). In said case, as per rule, the age relaxation was available to the “employee” of the Government of India and Union Territories. While considering the said provision, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of word “employee” and held that “when the Delhi Municipal Corporation has not defined the word “employee”, then restrictive meaning cannot be given to the employee” and in that facts and situation, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in absence of any restrictive definition, the word “employee” would include both permanent or temporary, regular or short term, contractual or ad hoc. However, in present case, advertisement itself contains restrictive benefits, restricted to permanent or temporary employee and it is not providing any benefit to the contractual appointee. In the advertisement before us, the only word “employee” is not there, but restrictive word has been used, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner. Hence, the L.P.A. having no merit, is dismissed. (Prakash Tatia, C. J.) (Jaya Roy , J.) SI/Anit