Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following relief's: "(a) That the respondents may very kindly be commanded to act in accordance with law and regularise the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2000 or in the alternative w.e.f. 1.4.2000, with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and fixation of pension. (b) That respondents may also very kindly be directed to pay arrears of pay to the petitioner till the age of 60 years as respondents have retired him from service at the age of 58 years. (c) That directions may be given to the respondents to calculate and pay the arrears with interest @ 9% per annum. (d) That directions may be given to the respondents to submit the case of the petitioner for pension and then to release pension in accordance with law, to secure the ends of law and justice."
(2.) UNDISPUTEDLY , the petitioner was appointed as daily wager on 1.1.1992 and had worked continuously without any break and completed 240 days of uninterrupted service and 8 years of regular service as on 31.12.1999. The respondents vide letter dated 26.9.2005 conveyed approval for regularisation of 1642 daily waged workers, who had completed 8 years or more daily wages continuous service as on 31.3.2000 with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year. The petitioner claimed regularisation of his services in terms of this letter. The respondents filed reply to the petition and the claim of the petitioner was sought to be defeated by making the following averments in para -2 of the preliminary objections: "2. That the petitioner was engaged as daily waged beldar w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and completed 10 years service with minimum 240 days in each calendar year as on 31.12.2001 but he could not be made regular due to non availability of sanctioned vacant post in his cadre on the basis of his seniority. It is worth to mention here that as per the policy of the Government conveyed by the Principal Secretary (PW) to the Govt. of H.P. vide his letter No. PBW(A)13(6)13/2002 dated 26.9.2005 and further circulated by Engineer -in -Chief, HPPWD, Shimla vide letter No. PWE -133 -11/ES -III -8675 -97 dated 24.10.2005 Annexure (R -1), the daily wages workers who have completed 8 years or more continuous service as on 31.3.2000 were to be regularized on the basis of seniority from prospective effect. Consequent upon this, the petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 31.12.2005 as no benefit of regularisation was given retrospectively in the above stated policy. Moreover, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Sh. Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State and others dated 19.4.1994 and Civil Appeal No. 1037/2007 titled as State of H.P. and other vs. Gehar Singh and others was under consideration of H.P. Govt. Therefore, 7842 tenure posts were created and approval for the same was conveyed vide Engineer -in -Chief, HPPWD, Shimla letter No. PWE -133 -11/2008 ES -III -16400 -16500 dated 25.2.2008 for the payment of arrears for regularisation of eligible candidates retrospectively for giving work charged status from due dates to those daily waged/Muster -roll workers who have completed 10 years continuous service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar years upto 31.12.1999, 31.12.2000, 31.12.2001, 31.12.2002 and 31.12.2003. Copy of letter dated 25.02.2008 is annexed as Annexure R -II. Since the petitioner had completed 10 years of regular service with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year on 31.12.2001, hence as per Govt. decision stated above he was regularised retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and the payment of all arrears for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2002 to 30.12.2005 was duly made to him. It is further submitted that as per the policy of Govt. issued vide notification No. Fin -(C)A(3)3/98 -Shimla dated 10.5.2001, the incumbents who have joined on or after 10.5.2001 will have to be retired after attaining the age of 58 years. The copy of notification is attached as Annexure R -III. Accordingly, the petitioner has rightly been retired from Govt. service on 31.8.2010 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. So far as consequential benefits are concerned, all have already been given to him. Therefore, the petition is baseless and not maintainable, hence deserves to be dismissed."
(3.) I have heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents and have also gone through the records carefully.;