MAYA DASS Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

(2.) IN the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, it is stated that the petitioner has been regularised in accordance with the seniority and man-days chart. Petitioner claims retrospective regularization w.e.f. 1997. The stand taken in the reply is that the regularisation was delayed in view of the non-availability of the vacancy till 2002, when he was regularised. But going through the decision of the Supreme Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Vs. State of H.P. and others 1994 Supplement (2) S.C.C. 316, in case there was no vacancy available to accommodate the petitioner, he should have been conferred with work charge status on completion of 10 years of service. If that be so, petitioner would have got the advantage of continuing in service upto the age of 60 years, in case such conferment of work charge status is prior to 10.5.2001. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to look into this aspect of the matter and take appropriate action in light of the observations made above. IN case petitioner is conferred with work charge status prior to 10.5.2001, he shall be deemed to have continued in service till he attained the age of 60 years. However, for the period he has not actually rendered service between 58 and 60 years, he shall be entitled only to the notional benefits. His pay, pension and pensionary benefits shall be accordingly re- fixed, if required, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Registry will immediately furnish a copy of this judgment to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.