Himachal Pradesh High Court
The State Of Himachal vs Smt. Dano Devi on 11 November, 2021
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 6848 of 2021
Between:
1. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (IPH)
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA2 H.P.
2. ENGINEERINCHIEF,
(IPH) DEPARTMENT,
US CLUB SHIMLA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA171001.
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
IPH DIVISION, PALAMPUR,
DISTT. KANGRA,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
...PETITIONERS
(BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:16:17 :::CIS
2
WITH MR. VIKAS RATHORE,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
.
AND
1. SMT. DANO DEVI,
WIDOW OF LT. SH. MACHLU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE GAJREHRA,
POST OFFICE MALAN,
TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
2.
SH. RAMESH KUMAR,
S/O LT. SH. MACHLU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE GAJREHARA,
POST OFFICE MALAN,
TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
3. SH. AMAR KUMAR,
S/O LT. SH. MACHLU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE GAJREHARA,
POST OFFICE MALAN,
TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
4. RASHMA KUMAR,
D/O LT. SH. MACHLU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE GAJREHARA,
POST OFFICE MALAN,
TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
5. RAKSHA DEVI,
D/O LT. SH. MACHLU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE GAJREHARA
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:16:17 :::CIS
3
POST OFFICE MALAN,
TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
.
6. MEERA DEVI,
D/O LT. SH. MACHLU RAM,
R/O VILLAGE GAJREHARA,
POST OFFICE MALAN,
TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN,
DISTRICT KANGRA H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
This Civil Writ Petition coming on for admission this
day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq, passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the State of
Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal'), dated 20th
March, 2019.
2. Machlu Ram, the predecessor of the respondents, retired
from service on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. sixty
years, on 31st July, 2013. It is not disputed that Machlu Ram was
reinstated in service pursuant to the award of the Labour Court,
dated 5th November, 2004, which declared the order of
termination of Machlu Ram as illegal and directed his
reinstatement with seniority with effect from 1st January, 1995.
.
The award of the Labour Court, dated 5 th November, 2004, was
challenged by the State before the High Court. The High Court
modified the award only to the limited extent confining the back
wages from 31st September, 2005 till the date of reengagement,
but, upheld the award. The SLP filed against the aforesaid
judgment was also dismissed.
3. Since Machlu Ram was engaged in service in 1994.
When he completed service of eight years by 31 st December, 2002,
he was regularized in service with effect from 1 st January, 2003
vide order dated 22nd May, 2017. The aforementioned Machlu
Ram had completed service of ten years seven months with effect
from 1st January, 2003 to 31st July, 2013.
4. According to the writ petitionersState, since he was
regularized in service on 1st January, 2003, by virtue of the
Government Circular dated 22nd February, 2010 and the
amendment made in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules vide
Government of Himachal Pradesh, Finance (Regulations)
Department Notification, dated 10th May, 2001, the daily wagers
Class IV employees engaged prior to 2001, when the notification
limiting the age of their retirement reducing their age of
.
retirement from 60 to 58 years was issued, will cease to be in
employment at the age of 60 years, however, no employee
appointed on daily wage basis after the reduction of the age limit
in 2001 will be retained after attaining the age of 58 years.
5. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal
indicates that it has taken note of the fact that the predecessor of
the respondents was reinstated in service with seniority from 1 st
January, 1995. He was conferred with regular status with effect
from 1st January, 2003. His regularization order was passed on
22nd May, 2017. It is not in dispute that in between, he continued
to serve the respondents up to 31st July, 2013, till when he
attained the age of 60 years. In this manner, he completed
regular service of more than ten years with effect from 1 st
January, 2003 to 31st July, 2013 and from the date when seniority
was granted to him by the Labour Court, i.e. 1 st January, 1995, he
would have served the respondents in total for 18½ years.
6. In the light of these facts, in our view, the Tribunal was
wholly justified in quashing the order dated 30th August, 2016, by
which the department sought to limit service of the predecessor of
the respondents up to 31st July, 2011 and totally exclude the
.
period of service actually rendered by him with effect from 1 st
January, 2003 to 31st July, 2013.
7. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous
applications, if any. r
( Mohammad Rafiq )
Chief Justice
( Sabina )
Judge
November 11, 2021
( rajni )
