Garja Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—Petitioner seeks a direction that he should be treated to have been continued in service till he attained the age of 60 years since his regularization is dated 1.1.2000. But the said benefit of retrospective regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000 was conferred on the petition only on 18.2.2008. By that time, he had already superannuated from service on completion of 58 years of service. No doubt in the case of those who were in regular appointment prior to 10.5.2001 they are entitled to continue up to 60 years. But in the case of Petitioner he had already superannuated after attaining the age of 58 years in the year 2008. Be that as it may. Since the Petitioner has been granted the benefit of regularization prior to 10.5.2001, he shall be treated to have been retired on attaining of the age of 60 years for all purposes except the actual monetary benefits for the period of two years from 58 to 60 years. The said period shall enure to the benefit of the Petitioner only notionally and shall have an impact only in the matter of fixation of increment, pension and other eligible retiral benefits. The needful in light of the aforesaid declaration shall be done within a period of three months.

Petitioner has also a grievance regarding the counting of his 50% of daily wage service for the purpose of pension. That would depend upon the decision in Sarab Dayal''s case. Therefore, subject to the finality to Sarab Dayal''s case, the benefits in that count will also be computed, if permissible, after a period of three months of the judgment attaining finality in Sarab Dayal''s case.

Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.