Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 15]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Paonta Sahib vs State Of Hp And Others Along With ... on 26 July, 2022

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sandeep Sharma

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                     ON THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2022




                                                         .

                             BEFORE
    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JUDGE
                                 &





    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA, JUDGE

    CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO. 3260
                          OF 2020




    Between

    SH. SUNDER SINGH S/O SH. MOHI RAM R/O
    VILL. SHIRGAON, PO SHILLA, TEHSIL

    PAONTA SAHIB, DISTT SIRMOUR, HP,

    PRESENTLY SERVING AS CHOWKIDAR
    UNDER FOREST DIVISION RENUKA, DISTT.
    SIRMAUR, HP.
                                                      ....PETITIONER


    (MR. A.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

    AND




    1.    STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
          SECRETARY      (FOREST)   TO    THE





          GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

    2.    PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONERVATOR       OF





          FOREST SHIMLA, HP.

    3.    THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
          FOREST DIVISION RENUKA, DISTRICT
          SIRMAUR, HP.
                                                 ....RESPONDENTS

    (MR.   ASHOK   SHARMA,   ADVOCATE
    GENERAL WITH MR. VINOD THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)


    ____________________________________________




                                        ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2022 20:03:04 :::CIS
                                        2




                 This civil writ petition coming on for orders this day,

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:




                                                                   .

                                  ORDER

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief :-

"(i) That the respondents may be ordered to retire the applicant at the age of 60 years and Annexure A-2 qua the applicant be be quashed"

2. It is not in dispute that the issue in question has now been conclusively resolved by the Hon'ble Full Bench 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2022 20:03:04 :::CIS 3 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 found to be covered by the said judgment, then the same and similar benefits, as directed by the Hon'ble Full Bench, be extended to the petitioner.

4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

5. For compliance, to come up on 27.09.2022.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sandeep Sharma) Judge 26th July, 2022 (Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2022 20:03:04 :::CIS