JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Aggrieved against the award dated 28.02.2011, passed by the learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dharamshala, H.P, whereby, the action of the respondent in retiring the petitioner at the age of 58 years was quashed and set aside, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the State. 2. Reference was sent to the learned Court below on two counts:- (a) Whether respondent, namely, Sh. Sonki Ram, is to be regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2000, on completion of 8 years of continuous service, as per judgment of Apex Court in Mool Raj Updhyaya and others Vs. State of H.P. (b) Whether the retirement of respondent on his attaining the age of 58 years was legal and justified. If not, the service benefits and compensation to be awarded to the workman. 3. The undisputed factual matrix of the case is:- 3 (i) Sh. Sonki Ram/respondent was engaged as Beldar on daily wages basis in January 1990, under HP.P.W.D. Division, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. 3(ii) The work charge status was accorded to the petitioner on 11.12.2002. 3(iii) Vide office order Annexure P-IV (Ext.RW1/A) dated 20.03.2008, respondent was regularized retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2001. It will be appropriate to reproduce relevant part of the order in this regard:- "Consequent upon the retrospective regularization of worker in this Department and in compliance to instructions issued by the Principal Secretary PWD to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh letter No.PBW-B (1) 2003-Loose dated. 18.02.2008 further communicated by the Engineer-in-Chief, HP. PWD Shimla vide letter No. PWE-133-11/2008-ES-111-16400-16500 dated 25.02.2008, date of regularization of Sh. Sonki Ram S/O Sh Shyama Ram is now considered as 1.1.2001 instead of 11.12.2002. This is also in partial modification of this office order No.PWD/BN/GA/Regularization/-10531-36 dated. 11.12.2002 the other conditions of the regularization/appointment shall remain the same. Due to above modification the pay of the above official is hereby fixed as under:- 1. Date of actual joint report the post. 11.12.2002. 2. Date of regularization now considered (after completion of ten years). 1.1.2001. 3. Basic pay as retrospective regularization 2620/- w.e.f. 1.1.2001. 4. Further increment due/released with date. 2720/-w.e.f 1.1.2002. 2820/-w.e.f. 1.1.2003. 2920/-w.e.f. 1.1.2004. 3020/-w.e.f. 1.1.2005. 3120/-w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Next increment: Retired on Dated. 28.02.2006. Date of actual joint report the post. 11.12.2002. 2. Date of regularization now considered (after completion of ten years). 1.1.2001. 3. Basic pay as retrospective regularization 2620/- w.e.f. 1.1.2001. 4. Further increment due/released with date. 2720/-w.e.f 1.1.2002. 2820/-w.e.f. 1.1.2003. 2920/-w.e.f. 1.1.2004. 3020/-w.e.f. 1.1.2005. 3120/-w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Next increment: Retired on Dated. 28.02.2006. The grant of above benefits is subject to verification from the audit and in case any discrepancy/error is noticed subsequent at any stage for any reason the concerned official will be liable to refund the said amount to the Govt. Forthwith." 3(iv) In view of the retrospective regularization of the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2001, the first point of the reference was not pressed. 4. In respect of retirement age of the petitioner. 4(i) Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, has contended that the respondent had rightly been retired on 28.2.2006, on his attaining the age of 58 years, in accordance with notification dated 10th May, 2001, by which F.R. 56 was amended and therefore has contended that award passed by the learned Labour Court, below in this regard is not justified. 4(ii) Learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the age of superannuation of respondent had to be 60 years and not 58 years, on which he has been retired. He therefore, has supported the impugned award. 4(iii)(a) The F.R.56(b), as it stood before 10th May, 2001, read as follow:- -------------- "(b) A workman who is governed by these rules shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years" 4(iii)(b) Vide notification dated 10th May, 2001 (Ext.RW1/D) amendment was carried out in F.R.56, to the following effect:- ------------------ "Amendment of rule-56- 2. In rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules. (a) After clause (b) the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provide that a workman appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. In rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules. (a) After clause (b) the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provide that a workman appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. (b) After proviso to clause (c) the following second proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provided further that a Class-IV Government servant appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years." (b) After proviso to clause (c) the following second proviso shall be inserted, namely:- Provided further that a Class-IV Government servant appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years." 4(iii)(c) A bare perusal of the notification dated 10th May, 2001, makes it clear that the above amendment had come into force from the date of publication in the gazette i.e. not earlier to 10th May, 2001. 4(iii)(d) In a decision rendered in CWP No. 7140 of 2012, titled Gian Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, which was eventually upheld in LPA No. 194 of 2015, by a Division Bench of this Court, it was held as under:- ------------------ "8. Once the petitioner is held entitled to the regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000, then the petitioner was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years as the petitioner is deemed to have been engaged prior to 2001 and his case is squarely covered by the policy of the State Government issued vide order dated 22.2.2010. This issue otherwise, is no longer res-integra in view of the decision rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Sanjay Karol,) in CWP No. 1837 of 2012 decided on 21.8.2014 titled Tara Chand vs. State of H.P. and others, wherein the office order dated 22.2.2010 was considered in detail and thereafter it was held as under:- '2. Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker in the year 1991. Petitioner was engaged as a daily wage worker in the year 1991. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.09.2006, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Division Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., vide office order dated 11.09.2006. Respondents did not consider the petitioner's case for regularization in the light of decision rendered by the apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya Versus State of H.P., (1994) Supp2 SCC 316 as also this Court in Gauri Dutt and others Versus State of H.P., 2008 LatestHLJ 366 (HP) as such vide judgment dated 03.05.2011 rendered in CWP No. 2360 of 2011, titled as Tara Chand Versus State of H.P. and others, State was directed to consider the petitioner's case, in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, vide order dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) now petitioner's case stands considered and respondents have granted him work charge status with effect from 01.01.2001. 3. In the light of such development, petitioner is legally entitled to continue to serve the State up to the age of 60 years. Policy so communicated vide order dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure P-7), which reads as under is evidently clear and squarely applicable:- 'No.PER (AP)-C-B(2)-1/2006-Vol.-VIII Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel (AP-III) Dated Shimla-171 002 22nd February, 2010. From The Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. To 1. All the F.C./Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171002. 2. All Divisional Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh. 3. All Heads of Departments in Himachal Pradesh. 4. All Deputy Commissioners in Himachal Pradesh. Subject:- Age limit for disengagement of a daily wager. Sir, I am directed to say that consequent upon amendment in Rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules vide Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Regulations) Department Notification No.Fin (C) A (3)-3/98 dated 10th May, 2001, the issue of fixing the age of disengagement of a daily wager in all the departments had also been engaging the attention of the Government for sometime past. After careful consideration, the Government has now decided that the people who are engaged on daily wages they will also be governed by the same set of age restriction of disengagement as is applicable to regular Government employees. After careful consideration, the Government has now decided that the people who are engaged on daily wages they will also be governed by the same set of age restriction of disengagement as is applicable to regular Government employees. As such, the Class-IV daily wager engaged prior to 2001 i.e. when said notification of limiting the age of Class-IV Employees was reduced from 60 to 58 years will cease to be in the employment at the age of 60 years and no daily wager deployed after the reduction of the age limit in 2001 will be retained after attaining the age of 58 years. Similarly, all Class-III and above employees if working on daily wage will cease to be employed at the age of 58 years. There should be no ambiguity in this matter and all departments are to follow this age restriction. 2. The policy regarding regularization of daily waged persons remain as circulated vide this office letter No.PER (AP)-C-B(2)-1/2006-Vol.-VII (Loose-2), dated 28.8.2009. 3. The above instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all concerned for strict compliance. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh" (Emphasis supplied) 4. The question of applicability of Fundamental Rules, 2001, so amended on 10.05.2001 (Annexure P-3) would not arise. It applies only to those employees who stand appointed on or after the date of amendment of Rules, which was so done in the year 2001. In the instant case, work charge status stands accorded to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2001, date prior to the amendment of Rules. In fact, the issue is no longer res integra and squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in LPA No.196 of 2010, titled as Bar Chand Versus State of H.P. and Others, operative portion of which reads as under:- "3. The learned Single Judge took the view that since the petitioner has been regularized in service after 2001, he is entitled to continue only up to 58 years. But as clearly stated in the circular, no distinction whatsoever is made as to regular service. In fact the expression used is daily wager engaged prior to 2001. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in 1994. The restriction up to the age of 58 years would apply only in the case of those engaged on daily wages after 2001 when the retirement age was reduced to 58 years. In fact the expression used is daily wager engaged prior to 2001. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as Beldar in 1994. The restriction up to the age of 58 years would apply only in the case of those engaged on daily wages after 2001 when the retirement age was reduced to 58 years. In view of the above circumstances, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, allow the writ petition with the direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue up to the age of 60 years. He shall be engaged forthwith with continuity of service at any rate within a period of one week from the date of production of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service shall be treated as duty for all purposes except the actual wages. In other words, there shall be continuity of service for all purposes except the actual wages since the petitioner has not actually worked during the period. 4. As far as regularization is concerned, in case any person engaged on daily wages after the petitioner has been regularized before the petitioner, he shall also be regularized with effect from the date. In any case, in view of the judgment in Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. (CWP No.2735 of 2010), the petitioner shall be first conferred work charge status. The consequential benefits shall be disbursed to the petitioner within two months." 9. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2000 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and fixation of pension and since the petitioner has now crossed the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, hence he shall be deemed to be in service and consequently, the respondents are directed to take all consequential action including disbursement of monetary benefits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this order." In another judgment rendered by the Division bench of this Court in CWP No.1894 of 2016, decided on 24.7.2017, titled State of H.P. and others Vs. Bhaskar Ram, it was held as under:- ----------------------------------- "2. Bhaskar Ram, it was held as under:- ----------------------------------- "2. The original applicant on the other hand claims that he having acquired 8 years of continuous service on daily wage basis on 1.1.2000 was entitled for regularization from the said date under the policy framed by the State Government and also the law laid down by this Court. 3. Admittedly, the original applicant was inducted on daily wage basis in Karsog Division of the Forest Department in the year 1991. He, however, completed 8 years of service with 240 days in each calendar year from 1.1.1992 onwards. As per the policy dated 26.9.2005 framed by the State Government read with High Court orders dated 3.4.2000 and 6.5.2000, issued by the Government for regularization of daily waged Beldars, the original applicant who had already completed 8 years of service on daily wage basis as on 1.1.2000, was entitled to be regularized as Beldar accordingly. The stand of the respondent-State that his services could have been regularized only on the availability of posts, however, is not tenable as a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of H.P and ors, CWP No. 7140 of 2012 decided on 24.9.2014 upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 194 of 2015 vide judgment dated 3.12.2015, has taken similar view of the matter and not only directed the respondent-State to regularize the services of the original applicant, a similarly situated person with effect from 1.1.2000,but also to allow him to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. Similar is the ratio of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1 of 2008 titled Chunni Lal vs. State of H.P. decided on 24.6.2015. 4. In this view of the matter, learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the original application since the entitlement of the original applicant for regularization w.e.f. 1.1.2000 allow him to continue in job up to the age of 60 years for the reason that as per FR 56, a Class-IV employee in regular service of the State Government as on 10.5.2001 is also entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years. The original applicant in the present case was retired from service on 31.7.2014 on attaining the age of 58 years. The original applicant in the present case was retired from service on 31.7.2014 on attaining the age of 58 years. He however, was retired from service on 31.3.2015, therefore, for the period from 31.7.2014 to 31.3.2015, he has to be treated on duty for all intents and purposes, of course notionally and as such, entitled to all monetary benefits. Therefore, learned Tribunal has appreciated this aspect of the matter also in its right perspective. The impugned order, as such, calls for no interference." 4(iii)(e) In the backdrop of above legal position, the contention of learned Additional Advocate General, that the respondent was regularized/granted work charge status w.e.f. 11.12.2002, therefore, he is governed by the notification dated 10th May, 2001 and thus had to retire only on attaining the age of 58 years, is misplaced:- (a) It is seen from the record that the petitioner/State had granted retrospective regularization to the respondent vide Annexure P-IV (Ext.RW1/A) dated 20.03.2008. Whereunder, regularization date of the respondent has been taken as 01.01.2001 instead of earlier given date of 11.12.2002. This new date of regularization is prior to the issuance of notification dated 10th May, 2001. (b) Admittedly, the notification dated 10th May, 2001, (Ext.RW1/D) has come into force only w.e.f. 10th May, 2001. This, therefore, will not govern the workman, who was appointed before 10th May, 2001. The respondent was working on daily wage basis with the petitioner/State w.e.f. 1990 and was regularized w.e.f. 1.1.2001. His date of retirement will thus be in terms of F.R.56(b) as it stood before 10.5.2001. Respondent, therefore, had to be retired on his attaining the age of 60 years as per unamended F.R.56(b) and not as per amended F.R.56(b). (c) The record also reveals that the arrears on account of retrospective regularization of the respondent had also been released to the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.2001 to 11.12.2002. Thus, the contention that respondent had to be treated as appointed after the issuance of notification is not correct. 5. In view of above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.