1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 581 of 1997 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JODHPUR V/S ANIL KUMAR CHOUHAN & ORS Mr.R.S.SALUJA, for the appellant / petitioner. Mr.B.N.KALLA, for the respondent. Date of Order : 24.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the termination of the writ petitioner. The facts of this case are, that the petitioner was initially appointed as Tracer on 9.6.82 vide Annex.2. Then, he was continued and vide Annex.5, it was ordered, that he would continue on adhoc basis, till duly selected candidate is made available by the Selection Commission. Then, vide Annex.6, the Commissioner recommended for extending services, till further orders. It appears, that at the time of passing of order Annex.5, the petitioner had become 2 little overage, inasmuch as, the upper limit of age was 35 years, while as on the date of Annex.5, he had completed 36 years, ten months and 12 days. However, the appellant vide communication Annex.7, recommended to the State Govt. that at the time of initial appointment, he was within the permissible age limit and, therefore, while treating him in continuous service, benefit of age be given and he be regularized. It appears that vide Annex.9, the Director declined, and directed for terminating the services, after following due process of law. It is challenging this order Annex.9, so also Annex.8, that the writ petition was filed. It may be observed here, that in the file, we do not have any document like Annex.8, though there are pleadings in this regard and in the index also, it is shown to be existing at page 27 but at the relevant place, the document is not there. Learned Single Judge found, that the termination order was stayed by this Court by interim order in the writ petition filed in the year 1987. Thus, his termination remained stayed for last 9 years and no reply has been filed on behalf of the State during all this time. With this, the learned Judge referred to the averments, made in the writ petition about deemed condonation of age limit. However, in view of the fact 3 that the petitioner has now continued for seven years in service, and has become overage, in all respect in all service, it was found to be unjust to permit the State now to terminate the services, on the ground, that at the time of recruitment, he was little overage. Thus, termination was set aside by acceptance of the writ petition. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, what we find is that the date of birth of the writ petitioner is said to be 16.6.1947, obviously, by now, he has completed the age of 60 years, being the superannuation age also long back, and it is not in dispute, that the employee did serve the appellant, pursuant to an appointment order issued, till he attained the age of superannuation. In such circumstances, any interference in the impugned order would, on the other hand, result in further grave injustice to the writ petitioner at this later age of his life. Thus, instead of going into hyper technicalities & find niceties, on equitable and humanitarian considerations, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. Rankawat JK,PS