Longu Ram vs The State of H.P. and Another

Kuldip Singh, J.—The Petitioner has prayed a direction to Respondents to re-engage him as ''Beldar'' in H.P.P.W.D. Division, Toni Devi, till his actual age of retirement i.e. October, 2012 and give him all consequential benefits, the retirement order of the Petitioner may be quashed and set-aside. The prayer has also been made for regularization of the service of the Petitioner as ''Beldar'' on completion of 8 years continuous service. The pre-regularization period of the Petitioner may also be counted for purpose of pension.

The further case of the Petitioner is that he was engaged as daily rated ''Beldar'' under the Respondents-department on 01.07.1993. He worked continuously and had completed more than 12 years with 240 days in each calendar year up to 30.08.2005. The Petitioner in July asked the Respondents to regularize his service on completion of more than 12 years of continuous service, but instead of regularizing service of the Petitioner, the Respondents wrongly retired the Petitioner on 30.08.2005.

The date of birth of the Petitioner as per Panchayat record is 18.10.1952. The Petitioner is an illiterate and had not joined the school, hence, Panchayat record is the sole proof of his date of birth. The Petitioner had more than 7 years of service as ''Beldar'' when he was wrongly retired on 30.08.2005. The Petitioner is entitled to regularization on completion of 8 years of service and for counting of pre-regularization period for purpose of pension.

The petition has been contested by Respondents by filing reply in which it has been stated that Petitioner was engaged as daily waged ''Beldar'' on 01.07.1993 and he was retired on 30.08.2005 on attaining 60 years the age of superannuation. The Petitioner was asked to produce his date of birth certificate from birth and death register or a certificate issued by competent authority for determination of his age during his engagement as ''Beldar''. The Petitioner produced the certificate to the department issued by Chief Medical Officer, Hamirpur consisting of Board of Doctors. The age certificate shows that during the year 1995 on 30.08.1995, the Petitioner was of 50 years. Therefore, on 30.08.2005, the Petitioner had attained 60 years age of superannuation.

On the basis of regularization policy dated 06.05.2005, work charge status can be given to daily waged muster-roll workers upon availability of posts. The Petitioner is not entitled for regularization on completion of 8 years service as per amended policy of the State Government dated 06.05.2005. The Petitioner is not entitled to pensionary benefits.

I have heard Petitioner in person and learned Additional Advocate General. The Petitioner has claimed that his date of birth is 18.10.1952 on the basis of Panchayat record. The Respondents have placed on record Annexure R-2 issued by Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Patnaun, in which date of birth of Petitioner has been shown 18.10.1952, but it has also been recorded in Annexure R-2 that date of birth of Longu Ram has been corrected as per affidavit. The Respondents have taken the stand that Petitioner had produced age certificate on the basis of Board of Doctors wherein on 30.08.1995 the age of Petitioner was determined 50 years. The Petitioner is illiterate.

There is no other material on record to determine the age of Petitioner. The date of birth 18.10.1952 as per Panchayat record relied by Petitioner cannot be believed inasmuch as the date of birth 18.10.1952 in the Panchayat record has been corrected on the basis of affidavit of Petitioner. There is no other corroborative evidence to show that date of birth of the Petitioner is 18.10.1952. On the contrary, the Board of Doctors on 30.08.1995 vide certificate Annexure R-1 have determined the age of Petitioner 50 years. Thus, on 30.08.2005, the Petitioner had attained 60 years and hence it cannot be said that Petitioner was wrongly retired on 30.08.2005 on attaining 60 years age of superannuation.

The Petitioner has claimed regularization after completion of 8 years of service as per policy. The Respondents in the reply have pleaded that in view of regularization policy dated 06.05.2005 work charge status can be accorded to daily waged muster-roll workers upon availability of posts in the respective cadre. The Respondents have not specifically taken the stand in the reply that regularization policy dated 06.05.2005 does not provide regularization after 8 years of continuous service. It has also not been pleaded that no post was available for giving work charged status to Petitioner.

The regularization policy dated 06.05.2005 has not been placed on record. The Petitioner is a poor man. It appears he cannot afford another round of litigation, hence, the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for work charged status as per policy applicable in his case. In case Petitioner is given work charged status then for counting service of the Petitioner for pension purpose prior to grant of work charged status to him, the Respondents shall not discriminate the Petitioner in case such service has been counted by the Respondents in case of other work charged employees. The Respondents shall take appropriate decision within a period of three months. A copy of this judgment be sent to Petitioner on his address given in the memo of parties. The petition stands disposed of with these directions.