IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5164/2008 Decided on:12.8.2010 _____________________________________________ Ghanshayam Singh Parmar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner was appointed as National Discipline Scheme Instructor (NDSI) by the Directorate of National Discipline Scheme in the month of December, 1963. The administrative control of National Discipline Scheme Instructors was taken over by the Government of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1.6.1973. The petitioner was absorbed in the State’s services in the pay scale of Rs. 170-350 vide office order dated 7.6.1975. He was confirmed in the State’s services. Once the petitioner has become the employee of the State Government, his conditions of service were 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to be regulated by the State Government. The retirement age for the State employees is 58 years. In these circumstances, he could not be permitted to work beyond 58 years. 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that only the administrative control was transferred to the Government of Himachal Pradesh with effect from 1.6.1973. This is not true. In fact, the petitioner stood absorbed in the State Government vide letter dated 7.6.1975 with effect from 1.6.1973. 3. The State Government has not adopted the amendment carried out in FR 56 whereby the age of retirement of the employees of the Government of India has been increased to 60 years. However, since the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal had granted the interim relief to the petitioner, we order the respondents not to effect recoveries from the salary of the petitioner for the period he has worked beyond the age of 58 years. However, his pensioanry/retiral benefits shall be worked out upto the age of 58 years, i.e. 31.8.1998. 4. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 12.8.2010 *awasthi*