MANSA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the month of October, 1993 in the respondent-Department. Name of the petitioner was recommended by the Screening Committee on 7.1.2006 for the purpose of regularization. Petitioner was found suitable as per letter dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure R-2). His name figured at Sr. No. 35. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent-Department instead of regularizing the petitioner on the basis of recommendations of the Screening Committee dated 7.1.2006, retired him after the age of 60 years.

(2.) Mr. Ashwani Pathak has strenuously argued that in fact his client was entitled to be conferred with work charge status immediately after the completion of 10 years continuous service as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhaya v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1994 Supp2 SCC 316. He then argued that his client has only attained the age of 58 years at the time when his case was considered for regularization by the Screening Committee on 7.1.2006.

(3.) Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner had attained the age of 60 years, he could not be regularized.