IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP-T No. 5355/2008 Decided on:2.3.2010 _____________________________________________ Charan Dass. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulata, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 and 2. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the action of the respondent-society to retire his client at the age of 58 years is in contravention of the Fundamental Rules. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been retired as per the provisions of rule 11 of the Service Rules of the Una Sub- 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Division Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Limited, Una, 1971. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. Rule 11 of the Service Rules of the Una Sub-Division Cooperative Supply and Marketing Society Limited, Una, 1971 reads thus: “All persons in the service of the society shall retire on the attainment of age of 58 years.” In view of rule 11 (supra), petitioner has rightly been retired at the age of 58 years. Petitioner could not substantiate that his service conditions are also regulated under the Fundamental Rules. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 2.3.2010 *awasthi*