., No. of Order `. Order with signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order 2. 14.5 08 Present: Mr. A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.G. Sherpa, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. J.B. Pradhan and Mr. Karma Thinlay, Govt. Advocates for the State-Respondents. This case is very similarly circumstanced as the earfier case of S.K. Srivastava because the service charter as on date of both the writ petitioners is dated 13.03.2003 and identically worded; we have dealt with the said document in detail in disposing of the earlier case. However, there are certain dissimilarities also. Srivastava is going to retire within a few months, but Vargese has still 8 years of service left. Srivastava had ffled an earlier writ petition in which the document dated 13.3.2003 was accepted as good by both the parties, but as Mr. Moulik assures the Court, no such writ petition was filed by Vargese. Serial I Date ,y i Order with signature Office Note as to No. of lof action (if any) Order I order taken on Order III(II I II1(I The only other point which we deal with in i --~,- this case is the prayer for advancement grade, made by Vargese. These requests have been turned down in other cases also including the case of S.K. Srivastava.Therepresentation of Vargese is annexed as Annexure P-6 and is dated 04.07.2007.Itisarguedthatheshouldbeconsidered fol` advancement grade without reference to the Sikkiln Government Service (Advancement Grade) Rules, 1999 which has been amended from tine to time including on 05.07.2004,However,theinapplicabilityof the advancement grade rules to persons on work- charged establisliment was there before 2004 and even riom 1999 itself.Rule2(2)(fryofthe said Rules states that the Rules are not applicable to "persons on work-charge d estabfishment".Mr.Mouliksubmitsthat the Rules of 1999 can have no effect on Vargese's case. Vargese I) became a work-charged employee many years before that, i.e., from 1979/ 1980. # ®j§. Serial Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of.- action (if any) Order Order taken on Order II11 The validity of retrospective laws, or Rules or service conditions is ultinately a test of reasonableness. In t?~sting such reasonableness in cases such as this, both the contractual nature and the nature of status of a Government employee are to be paid due attention. 'Ihe attendant circumstances are also to be looked into, for the purpose of passing a just and reasonable order in a vrit matter and II it should always be remembered that the wit IIIIIIII!1I(( Court is a Court of equity.Wefindthatfrom 1979 up to 2007 Vargese has raised no objection. He has 8 more years of service left. He has all along worked with his eyes wide open (or at least his eyes are to be taken as wide open, because ignorance of the law is nobody's excuse) to the rules, showing that he was on work-charge and therefore Advancement Grade Rules, 1999 are not applicable to hin.tNumerouspersons are likely to be affected if the Court rules now that the advancement grade Rules, 1999 will not apply to work- II charged employees who beca]ne such before II 1999. We are also not aware of any older Rule, 11(II prior to 1999, and we were not made aware of 1 •`# se#l Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No.`ofOrder( `o:ier. action (if any)takenonOrder I I II any such older rule, which specifically says that ; advancement grade will be applicable to the work-charged employees also.Inthisviewofthematter, this writ petition has no legs to stand upon. The representation III II) of the writ petitioner asking for advancement grade is without any substance.Asaffidavitshavenotbeen called for, the statements in the petition cannot be taken to be 1 II11II 11I admitted.The writ petition is dismissed in limine without its admission. (A.N. Ray, CJ) ut III,'( ( II,,I III (A. . ubba,J) I_-I----