IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No.: 11297/2008 Reserved on: 6.4.2011 Decided on:21.4. 2011 _____________________________________________ Geeta Ram. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was appointed as Mason on daily wage with the respondent-Department on 1.3.1990. He filed O.A. No.3770/2003 seeking directions to the respondents to consider his case for regularization after completion of 8 years, as per notification 8.7.1999. The learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal disposed of the original application on 12.4.2004 with a direction to treat the original application as representation to the Engineer-in- Chief. The same was decided by him on 18/25.8.2004. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur has strenuously argued that the order Annexure A-3 dated 18/25.8.2004 is illegal and arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, petitioner was born in the year 1946 and not in the year 1938. He has relied upon Annexure A-2 dated 10.7.2001 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Solan, District Solan. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 1938 in the Pariwar Register, i.e. Annexure R-1. He then contended that the petitioner had not been directed by the Department to get his date of birth assessed by the Medical Board. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was appointed on 1.3.1990. His date of birth has been recorded in the Pariwar register as 1938. He has tried to take advantage of Annexure A-2 whereby his age has been assessed 55 years as on 10.7.2001. On the basis of the entry made in the Pariwar Register, petitioner had to superannuate in the year 1998. However, he was permitted to continue by the respondent-Department. It is only when the learned Tribunal directed the original 3 application to be treated as representation; it transpired during the hearing that the petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded as 1938. He has relied upon Annexure A-2. It is not borne out from the record that the petitioner had ever been directed by the respondent-Department to get his age assessed from the Medical Board. Petitioner has only moved an application to Sub Divisional Officer, who ordered the constitution of the Medical Board. Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari has also verified that the petitioner was born in the year 1938. In view of this the petitioner had to superannuate in the year 1998 and there is no illegality in the order dated 18.8.2004 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated. In fact, petitioner on the basis of the original date of birth, i.e. 1938 has over stayed for more than six years. Since the petitioner had to superannuate in the year 1998, he could not be considered for regularization after attaining the age of superannuation as the notification came into force on 8.7.1999. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 21.4. 2011 *awasthi*