C.W.P No. 5749 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 5749 of 2008 Date of decision : February 18, 2009 Sidharth ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and another, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Ms. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The father of the petitioner was appointed as daily wage Safai Karamchari in the year 2004. When his case for regularization was considered with effect from the date his counter parts were regularized, the same was denied to him on the ground that on the said date, he was over age for being appointed to the government service. The claim in this writ petition is that the petitioner's father should have been regularized from that date and thereafter, since he died C.W.P No. 5749 of 2008 ::2:: during his service in 2007, monetary benefits extended to the dependents of regular employees who die in service should also be extended to the petitioner. As regards the question of over age is concerned, reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Baldu Ram vs State of Haryana, 2000(3) SCT 288, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- “6. The first ground of rejection is regarding the age of the petitioners not being within the age limit of 16 to 35 years. In this regard it may be pointed out that the petitioners were within the permissible limit of age when they were recruited in the respondent-department and were appointed on their respective posts. They became over-age and crossed the aforesaid age limit while they rendered service in the department. In this view of the matter, since the petitioners at the time of their initial appointment were within the permissible age limit, the case for regularisation of their services cannot be declined on the ground that they became over-age while rendering service with the respondent-department.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law, I hold that it was not open to the respondents to deny the benefit of regularization to the father of the petitioner on the ground that he was over age on the appointed date. It may be noticed here that as per the policies dated 21.10.2003 and 10.2.2004, there is no requirement that age has to be seen on the date of regularization. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents C.W.P No. 5749 of 2008 ::3:: are directed to consider the case of the father of the petitioner for regularization with effect from the date his counter parts were regularized and thereafter give admissible benefits (of a deceased regular government servant) to his dependents within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 18, 2009. JUDGE `kk'