IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 5783 2010 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 ------------------------------------------------- Tula Ram Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. For the petitioner: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral): The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order of superannuation of the petitioner dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure P-6), may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to reengage/reemploy the petitioner on the post of Beldar with effect from 2.2.2010 till the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years with all consequential benefits including the arrears of the salary etc. 2 2. On the submission that the petitioner had been engaged in the year 1987, this Court passed the following order on 28.10.2010:- “The petitioner was engaged on daily waged basis in the year 1987.The regularization, it appears is granted only in 2007. But according to the petitioner, being a pre- 2001 appointee, he is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. Therefore, there will be direction to the respondents to reengage the petitioner into service, subject to the result of the writ petition. Post on 26.11.2010.” 3. In the reply, it is stated that though the petitioner was engaged initially in the year 1987, he had been dis-engaged in the year 1990 and re-engaged only in the year 1996. Para-2 of the reply, on merits, reads as follows:- “That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked on daily wages basis in December, 1987 i.e. w.e.f. 21.12.87 to 31.10.90. Thereafter, he was re-engaged on 25.5.96 after considering his representation by the then Assistant Engineer, in pursuance of order dated 15.12.1995 passed by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2622/95 and thereafter worked continuously. Therefore he worked with 240 days from the calendar year 1997.” 4. Still further it is stated in Para-6 in the reply as follows:- “That contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked with 240 days from 1997 and hence he completed 8 years as per policy formulated on 31.3.2006 3 against which sanction received in October, 2007 and accordingly considered for regularization w.e.f. 10.10.2007.” 5. In view of the factual position as above, evidently the submission made through the counsel leading to the interim order extracted above is factually wrong. 6. Since admittedly, the regularization of the petitioner is after 2001, he is entitled to continue only upto the age of 58 years. Therefore, the interim order dated 28.10.2010 is vacated and the writ petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice December 21, 2010 ( Justice V.K. Ahuja ), (BSS/Tilak) Judge 4