Bar Chand vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner''s grievance is against the order, dated 24.12.2009, copy Annexure P-4, by which he has been ordered to be retired from service as Beldar, w.e.f. 31.5.2010. Also, he seeks regularization of his services as Beldar from 31.3.2004, instead of 27.1.2007, from which date his services have been regularized by the respondents and on being treated as regularized w.e.f. 31.3.2004, he seeks all the pensionary benefits, permissible to a government servant, on superannuation.

Petitioner was engaged as a daily waged Beldar on 5.9.1994. His services were regularized w.e.f. 27.1.2007. On 24.12.2009 a notification, Annexure P-4, was issued, which said that he would stand retired on 31.5.2010, on completing the age of 58 years. He pleads that he is entitled to remain in service upto the age of 60 years. He places reliance upon a communication, dated 22.2.2010, copy Annexure P-3, according to which, a daily waged worker, engaged prior to 2001, is to be disengaged on completion of age of 60 years

Prayer made by the petitioner is opposed by the respondents. According to them, post against which the petitioner was regularized, became available on 27.1.2007 and no post being available prior to that, he cannot be ordered to be regularized from an earlier date. As regards notification Annexure P-3, it is alleged that this is applicable to those workers, whose services have not been regularized and not to those persons, who on account of regularization of their services, become regular government servants and cease to be daily waged workers.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General.

Since no post was available prior to 27.1.2007, against which the petitioner could have been regularized, his plea for regularization from an earlier date cannot be accepted. Petitioner''s contention that he is entitled to continue to remain in service upto the age of 60 years, in view of amendment to Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules, vide communication Annexure P-3, is also not tenable, because the notification is applicable only to daily wagers. It speaks of disengagement of daily wagers, which implies that the persons concerned should not be regular employees. In the case of regular government servants, it is not disengagement, but retirement on attainment of age of superannuation. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the main matter, pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. Interim order shall stand vacated forthwith.