Paras Ram v. State of H.P & Ors.

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondents. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Whether a workman is automatically entitled to back wages when there is retrospective regularization is the moot question to be considered in this case. Petitioner was a daily waged workman, originally regularized in December, 2002. However, pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of H.P. and others versus Gehar Singh (2007) 12 SCC 43 petitioner was granted retrospective regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000. In the meanwhile Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner had already retired from service at the age of 58 years since in the case of those who have been regularized after

10.5.2001, they were entitled to continue only up to attaining the age of 58 years. That retirement on the basis of the regularization originally granted w.e.f. December, 2002 took place in the year

2004. Retrospective regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000 was granted in the year 2008. Now the submission of the petitioner is that he should have been continued up to the age of 60 years since all those who were regularized prior to 10.5.2001 are entitled to continue up to age of 60 years and that he should be granted all the consequential benefits.

There may not be any serious dispute as to the entitlement of the petitioner to continue up to 60 years since he has been regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2000. But fact remains that petitioner had already retired from service in the year 2004 and retrospective regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000 has been granted only in the year

2008. Having crossed the age of 60, there arises no question of reinstatement. The fact remains that the petitioner has not actually worked for the said period of two years. It is not a case of unjust denial of extension contemporaneously. There is also no case of any such denial challenged contemporaneously before a statutory forum or Court. In such cases it will be highly unjust and grossly illegal to grant actual benefits. Therefore, the grant of consequential benefit of continuance up to 60 years, in terms of equity and law can only be notional. This legal principle has not been considered in Annexure 3 P-4, judgment in CWP No. 3269 of 2009 and hence the said judgment rendered by the Single Judge can only be treated as one rendered per incuriam and hence the same does not have any precedential value.

In the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed with the following directions. Petitioner shall be deemed to have been retired on attainment of the age of 60 years. However the actual benefits for the period of two years between 58 and 60 shall only be notional. In other words benefit of declaration as above shall enure to the petitioner only for the purpose of refixation of his pension and gratuity. He shall not be entitled to the actual back wages. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 15, 2011 (C/PK)