IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 209 of 2009. Date of Decision: 12th August, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Beli Ram .. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J (Oral). The petitioner has sought mainly the following reliefs: “(A) That writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and the order dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Executive Engineer Mechanical Division, Bilaspur contained in Annexure P-1, may kindly be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. (B) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and the respondents maybe directed to allow the petitioner to work/continue till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. 25.11.2009 and retire him on 30.11.2009 as per the rules.” 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. The petitioner was initially engaged as daily- wage helper on 26.12.1989 by the respondent- Department. According to his case, he was entitled for the grant of work charge status on the completion of 10 years of daily wage services. The Finance Department of the Government of H.P. issued a notification dated 10.5.2001 with regard to reducing the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years in case of Class-IV employees. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 8.12.2002, as such he was retired from the service on 30.1.2007 on attaining the age of 58 years. Later his services were regularized with effect from 1.1.2000 instead of 8.12.2002 based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court. On having been superannuated at the age of 58 years, the petitioner made a representation on 1.9.2008 to the respondent- Department to allow him to continue till the age of 60 years, which admittedly is pending decision. 3. In CWP No.3587 of 2011 titled as Garja Ram versus State of HP and others, an affidavit was filed by Shri R.C. Verma, Chief Engineer, Central Zone, HPPWD, Mandi, that in the Central Zone, HP PWD, Mandi, such type of salary benefits, for the period of their retirement at the age of 58 years and later on as per Notification issued by the Government bearing - 3 - No.Fin.(C)A-(3)3/98 dated 10.5.2001 those, who retired subsequently after attaining the age of 58 years on superannuation, have been given only to Shri Jai Singh, retired Beldar. 4. Therefore, in my opinion, if the case of the petitioner is similarly situated as that of Shri Jai Singh, as per the affidavit in CWP No.3587 of 2011, the same benefit be accorded to the petitioner within a period three months from the production of copy of this judgment with all consequential benefits. 5. The petition stands disposed of. August 12th, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.