Sh. Shyam Singh vs State Of Hp And
2022 Latest Caselaw 6403 HP

          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 NO. 3512 of 2020





    Between:-


    SH. SHYAM SINGH, SON OF SH. JOGI RAM,
    RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TORU, P.O.
    DHANDA,     TEHSIL   PAONTA     SAHIB,




    DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P. EX. PEON, GOVT.
    COLLEGE BHARLI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR,
    H.P.
                                                            ....PETITIONER

    (MR. A.K.GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

    AND

    1.    STATE OF H.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL


          SECRETARY     (EDUCATION)      WITH
          HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA-2, H.P.

    2.    THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION




          WITH HEADQUARTERS AT SHIMLA, H.P.





    3.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
          EDUCATION WITH HEADQUARTERS AT
          NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.
                                                       ....RESPONDENTS





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


    ____________________________________________

                This civil writ petition coming on for orders this day,
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2022 20:06:17 :::CIS
                                           ORDER

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following

.

substantive relief :-

" That the impugned portion of notification dated 10 th May, 2001 may kindly be read down/set aside and the

petitioner may be held to be in service upto the age of 60 years with all the benefits incidental thereof and his retirement at the age of 58 years may be set aside"

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 this case 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 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 (reena/Guleria)