IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP 3269 of 2009. Decided on June 28, 2010. Karam Chand …. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. R.P.Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral). Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, in retiring him from service with effect from 29.2.2008, on attaining the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, he had been granted work charged status, with retrospective effect, that is from 1.1.2000, vide order dated 30.12.2002. It is stated that the petitioner being a workman and having been granted work charged status from 1.1.2000, was governed by un-amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, which provided for retirement of a workman at the age of 60 years, but wrongly applying the amended Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, he has been retired on attaining the age of 58 years, with effect from 29.2.2008. 2. In reply, respondents do not deny the factual position as asserted in the writ petition. However, it is stated that by the time the policy decision of the Government was conveyed to the concerned Executive Engineer, that is, Executive Engineer, Mandi, Division No. 1, HP PWD, Mandi, through letter dated 1.3.2008, petitioner had already been relieved, on attaining the age of 58 years. It is also admitted that the petitioner had been granted work charged status with effect from 1.1.2000. That means, respondents concede that the petitioner was governed by Fundamental Rule 56 (b), as it existed, prior to its amendment vide notification, dated 10.5.2001. As per this notification, date of retirement of workmen was reduced to 58 years. However, this amendment was made applicable only to those workmen, who were appointed on the date of said notification, or were to be appointed subsequent thereto. Petitioner, having been granted work charged status with effect from 1.1.2000 or say prior to the aforesaid amendment, was, therefore, not covered by - 3 - amended provision, but by the original provision, as it stood before amendment. 3. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continued in service till the attainment of age of 60 years by him and shall be given all the consequential benefits, including rise in pension, gratuity and salary for the period of two years, that is to say from the date he was retired, that is 29.2.2008, to the date on which he was due to retire, that is 28.2.2010. June 28, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.