Himachal Pradesh High Court
Himanshu Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 30 June, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1759/2014
Decided on: 30.6.2015
.
___________________________________________________
Himanshu Sharma. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others. ...Respondents.
______________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 No
For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.A. Khan, Addl. A.G. with
Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. A.G. and
Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. Advocate
General for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate vice counsel
for respondent No.3.
Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate for respondent
No.4.
Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Advocate for
respondent No.5.
____________________________________________________________
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral):
Petitioner joined his duties in Himtron Factory. He was transferred to T.V. factory on 1.7.1988. T.V. factory was closed on 16.6.1997. Petitioner was relieved in the year 2000. Petitioner filed original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:28:26 :::HCHP 2 the redressal of his grievance, which after the abolition of Tribunal was transferred to this Court and was assigned CWP (T) No. 7005/2008. It was decided on 10.3.2011.
.
Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
"6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption against an existing vacancy of Senior Technician/ equivalent post, in the Respondent No.1-Corporation, in the first instance and in case no such post is available with the said Corporation, in any other Govt. Department/ Board/ corporation, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so advised. However, it is clarified that since the petitioner has neither joined nor worked against the post of Clerk offered to him, he shall not be entitled for any back-wages on the principle of 'no work no pay'."
2. There was prolonged correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, which ultimately led to the appointment of the petitioner as Workshop Instructor (Electronics) in the Government Polytechnic for Women, Kandaghat. He joined his duties at Kandaghat.
3. The contention of Mr. Subhash Sharma is that the petitioner should have been retired at the age of 60 years and not at the age of 58 years. The retirement age, as per the service bye-laws of respondent No.5, i.e. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:28:26 :::HCHP 3 H.P. State Electronics Development Corporation, is 58 years. Respondent No.5 had sought clarification regarding the retirement age of the transferred staff from .
HPSIDC/TV factory from the State vide letter dated 18.3.2005. It was decided by the State Government that since the service conditions of the transferred employees on transfer are to be governed by service bye-laws of HPSEDC, therefore, the retirement age of transferred employees would be same as would be applicable to the employees of HPSEDC, as per service by laws made applicable to the transferred employees by agreement between HFL and Himachal Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation. This decision was taken vide Annexure R-5/4. Petitioner has retired on 31.3.2014 after attaining the age of 58 years.
4. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
30.6.2015 *awasthi* ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:28:26 :::HCHP