Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ranvir Singh vs . State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 November, 2023
Ranvir Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 6565 of 2023 .
17.11.2023 Present: Miss Anchal Sharma, proxy counsel, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3/State.
of Mr. Sohail Khan, Proxy counsel, for respondents No. 4 to 7.
CMP No. 12563 of 2023 rt The petitioner, being a daily wager was engaged in January 1988 and worked till 1995 and thereafter he remained out of job due to termination but he was employed afresh on 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-3) has come up before this Court, assailing the cut-off date (10.05.2001) as contained in the Notification dated 21st February, 2018 (Annexure P-7), issued under Fundamental Rule 56(e) and is seeking continuity in service upto the age of 60 years beyond the age of superannuation of 58 years on the same analogy, on which the Government servants, who were engaged/appointed on part-time or daily wages basis prior to 10.05.2001 have been allowed to continue till the age of 60 years.
Prayer for continuity, upto 60 years cannot be acceded to for the reason; firstly, once the vires of the cut-
off date (10.05.2001) has been impugned in this petition, ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2023 20:31:19 :::CIS therefore, a legal presumption arises that the cut-off in a .
rule, prima facie has to be treated as Constitutionally intra-vires, till the time it is set-aside, which is not the case herein; secondly, the prayer in the main petition as well as prayer in interim, seeking continuity of service of beyond 58 years and upto the age of 60 years is same/similar, therefore, no interim can be granted at this rt stage, as it will amount to allowing the writ petition at this stage; thirdly the reliance on the findings in Para 7(ii) of the Full Bench judgement in case of CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. Sate of H.P. granting continuity upto 60 years where the part time daily wagers were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and were regularized on or after 10.05.2001 (Annexure P-7) is of no avail to the petitioner, who was employer of respondent w.e.f.
31.12.2012 (Annexure P-3); but in the instant case petitioner after loosing past seniority was considered to be in service w.e.f. the year 31.12.2012 (Annexure P-3);
fourthly, the interim orders in Annexure P-11 (colly) do not indicate the date of initial engagement (prior to 10.05.2001); fifthly, as per office order dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-12) the petitioner stood already retired from service ; and lastly the petitioner can adequately be compensated in terms of service benefits/monetary ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2023 20:31:19 :::CIS benefits finally in case the instant petition is ultimately .
decided.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present application i.e. CMP No. 12563 of 2023 is dismissed.
CWP No. 6565 of 2023of Let, reply to the main petition be filed within six weeks. List thereafter.
rt
November 17, 2023 (Ranjan Sharma)
™ Judge
::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2023 20:31:19 :::CIS