IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7721 of 2010 Decided on: 8.12.2010 Nainu Ram ……..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and ors. ………Respondents. Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge For the petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. 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, quashing Annexure P-2, whereby the Respondent Department has given premature retirement to the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years, whereas the petitioner was engaged as daily waged Beldar prior to 2001 and in view of the Circular of the Respondent State, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service upto 60 years of age in view of Annexure P-3 judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service as Beldar till he attains the age of 60 years.” 2 2. According to the petitioner, his case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. and ors. and on completion of 10 years of service with 240 days, he should have been either regularized in service or conferred with the work-charged status in the year 1999, in which case, he would have continued till attaining the age of 60 years. Similar situation was considered by this Court leading to judgment, Annexure P-3. Therefore, this writ petition is also disposed of directing the second respondent/competent authority to look into the matter and take appropriate action in terms of Annexure P-3, judgment within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. If the decision is in favour of the petitioner and he is found entitled for work charge/regularization before 10.5.2001, his entitlement will be only for the service benefits treating the period he was kept out of duty as service for all purposes, except for actual wages. 3. All the pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice V.K. Ahuja), December 8, 2010 Judge (tilak/pankaj)