IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8202 of 2024 Decided on: 10th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Govind Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Gist of petitioner’s case, his grievance as also the issue involved in the case was noticed as under in the order passed in this writ petition on 16.07.2025:- “In terms of the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner rendered total of 5 years of regular service w.e.f. 01.01.2000 till his superannuation on 31.12.2004 at the age of 60 years. The reply also tabulates that the petitioner had rendered continuous service of 10 years w.e.f. 1990 till his retrospective regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2000. In case the benefit of 10 years of daily- wage service is extended to the petitioner in light of the law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3, the petitioner would become entitled to 2 more years of regular service, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 2 taking his total regular service to 7 years, which still falls short of the 8-year benchmark. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was made to retire on 31.12.2004 at the age of 58 years and not at 60 years, therefore, petitioner is entitled to benefit of decision rendered in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.4. 3. Let learned counsel on both sides to place on record relevant documents in respect of petitioner’s age at the time of superannuation on 31.12.2004 and his entitlement to the benefit in terms of Baldev Singh4. This be done before the next date. List after two weeks.” 2. Pursuant to the above order, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record copy of office instructions dated 06.09.2025 from the office of respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, B&R Division, HPPWD Joginder Nagar, District Mandi. In terms thereof, the petitioner had retired on 31.12.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years. That his date of birth as recorded in the service book is ‘31.12.1944’. The muster rolls pertaining to the year 2004, where petitioner’s date of birth has been recorded as 31.12.1944, have also been appended alongwith the office instructions. In view of above, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable. Relief prayed for by him cannot be granted in this petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is 4 HLJ 2022 (HP)(1) 151 3 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 10, 2025 Judge Mukesh