IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 273 of 2011 & 274 of 2011. Decided on: July 14, 2011. 1. LPA No. 273 of 2011. Punnu Ram. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 2. LPA No. 274 of 2011. Ateh Mohammed Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant(s): For the respondents: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment, therefore, both are taken up together for hearing. 2. The appellants are the petitioners in the Writ Petition. They are aggrieved since the writ petition seeking relief of continuance up to the age of 60 years has been turned down by the learned Single Judge. The Learned Single Judge has taken the view that the appellants being the employees of the erstwhile Fish Federation and they having been appointed in Government service after 10.5.2001, are only entitled to continue up to the age of 58 years. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has made mainly three contentions:- i) That the Fish Federation for all purposes is to be treated as State. ii) The employees have only been adjusted in government service when the Fish Federation was wound up. iii) Their pay is protected and for all purposes, they are to be treated as appointed in government service from the date of government service. 4. We are afraid, none of the contentions can be appreciated. The employees of the erstwhile Fish Federation cannot be treated as government servants since they were treated by different conditions of service. It is also a fact that the Federation was only Co-operative Society. When the Federation was wound up, the employees were temporarily adjusted in government service. The 2 order of adjustment is Annexure P-4 produced alongwith the Writ Petition. This orders are passed in the year 2007. It is seen from condition No. 4 of the office order that “ the official will be treated as appointed in the department w.e.f. his joining at the place of posting as a result of his adjustment.” Therefore, it is fairly clear that the adjustment and appointment have been differently conceived. The adjustment is made at the time of the taking over and appointment is made at the time of posting. It is crystal clear from the terms and conditions of the Office order issued in 2007 that the employees of the erstwhile Federation will be treated to have been appointed when they were actually posted in government departments. If that be so, the appointment is obviously after 2001. The fundamental rules amended by Notification dated 10.5.2001 clearly provides that the Class IV government servants appointed on or after the date of publication of the Notification should have to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. Evidently, the appellants are persons appointed in government service after 10.5.2001. Therefore, though for different reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeals are and ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any . (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 14, 2011. ( Justice V.K.Sharma), (karan/vs) Judge.