CIVIL APPEAL 8830 of 2008 on 15 February 1954

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 8830 of 2008.

Reserved on : 15.12.2010.Decided on: 31.12.2010.

Chamel Singh.

…Petitioner.

-Versus-

State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

…Respondents.

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

__________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. :Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For respondent No. 1. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 2. : Mr. Y.W. Chauhan, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral):

Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as Beldar in the respondent No. 2-Municipal Council. He was regularized on 20.10.1999. He filed an affidavit disclosing his age to be 15.02.1954. Respondent No. 2 sought the clarification from the office of Executive Engineer (Mechanical), H.P. P.W.D., where the petitioner’s younger brother was working. The respondent No. 2 was informed by the Executive Engineer (Mechanical), H.P. P.W.D. on 20[th] June, 2002 that petitioner’s younger brother, namely, Shri Prem Chand had already retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.05.2002.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No.

2. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the date of birth of his client is 15.02.1954 and on that basis, he could not be retired on 30.09.2002.

3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that the date of birth given by the petitioner is factually incorrect.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

5. Petitioner was served with a notice Annexure A-2 on 06.08.2002 to explain the position why he should not be retired after attaining the age of 60 years. He filed reply to the same on 19.08.2002. The reply given by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The respondent No. 2, on the basis of the information supplied to it by the Executive Engineer (Mechanical), H.P. P.W.D., retired the petitioner vide order dated 11.09.2002 w.e.f. 30.09.2002. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical), H.P. P.W.D. has informed the respondent No. 2 that younger brother of the petitioner, namely Shri Prem Chand, Son of Shri Lachhi Ram had already retired after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years on 30.05.2002. In fact, as per the reply filed by respondent No. 2, the date of birth of the petitioner’s younger brother recorded with his employer, i.e., H.P.P.W.D. and I.P.H. State Workshop, Nahan Foundary is 30.05.1942. Petitioner has not placed any tangible material on record to substantiate that his date of birth was 15.02.1954.

6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

December 31, 2010. (bhupender)

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge