Maru Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The Petitioner approached this Court challenging Annexure P-4. As per the said communication of the 3rd Respondent, the Petitioner was retired from service on 30.9.2010. In the reply, it is stated that the retirement was owing to oversight. The Respondents ought to have noticed that the Petitioner is only a class-IV employee and in such matters almost at the mercy of the literate and experienced officers. Learned Deputy Advocate General points out that the oversight occurred only on account of retrospective regularization granted to the Petitioner as per Annexure P-2. Be that as it may. The Petitioner himself has approached this Court only after six months. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Petitioner shall be continued in service till the attainment of age of 60 years. His pension and pensionary benefits shall be calculated and disbursed to him within another four months. The Petitioner shall also be reengaged in service thereafter for the period he was actually kept out owing to oversight. But it is made clear that for the said period, he shall be entitled for only actually wages and nothing else. Needless to say that such reengagement would depend on the willingness of the Petitioner to work after sixty years.

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.