STATE OF H.P. Vs. BELI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Admit. As short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. Respondent waives notice through counsel.

(2.) THIS appeal takes exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 12th August, 2011. The learned Single Judge has issued direction to the appellants to give benefit to the respondent on the same lines, as given to Jai Singh, as noted in the affidavit filed in CWP No.3587 of 2011. That direction is primarily subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) EVEN in the case of the respondent, the respondent attained the age of superannuation on completion of 58 years on 30th November, 2007. However, his regularization order with effect from the date prior to 10th May, 2001 was passed after his retirement (i.e. after 30th November, 2007). The respondent on that basis made representation on 1st September, 2008 to allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. By that time, however, the respondent had already reached the age of 59 years. Even in the case of Garja Ram, the fact situation is similar. Notwithstanding that, the Division Bench in that case extended notional benefit to the employee concerned except the actual monetary benefits for the period of 2 years from 58 to 60 years.