Himachal Pradesh High Court
Devi Roop vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 10 May, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2672 of 2023 .
Decided on: 10.05.2023 Devi Roop ........PETITIONER Versus STATE OF H.P. & ORS.
.......RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?
For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma & Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan & Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocates General.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ, (oral) Notice. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents/State.
::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2023 20:35:27 :::CISThe instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:
.
"i) That the retirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years, may kindly be set aside and he may be held to be in service upto the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits as directed in the case of Baldev Vs. State of H.P. and Others."
2. It is not in dispute that the issue in question has now been conclusively resolved by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in its judgment rendered in CWP No.2711 of 2017 titled as Baldev vs. State of HP and others along with connected matters on 22.02.2022, wherein while dealing with the question regarding the age of retirement to be 58 years or a right of an employee to continue in service upto attainment of age of 60 years, the following principles were laid down:-
"xxxxx (ii) Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, no just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand's case, i.e. date of regularization of a Class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2023 20:35:27 :::CIS engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 .
years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply.
(iii) There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogeneous class. Therefore, the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years.
Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement.
However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly."
3. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to examine, consider and then decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and in case the case of the petitioner is ::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2023 20:35:27 :::CIS found to be covered by the said judgment, then the same and similar benefits, as directed by the Hon'ble Full Bench, .
be also extended to the petitioner herein.
4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
For compliance, to come up on 27.06.2023.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Acting Chief Justice
r (Virender Singh)
Judge
May 10, 2023
(pathania)
::: Downloaded on - 11/05/2023 20:35:27 :::CIS