Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lpa No. 25/2023 vs Sonki Ram on 12 April, 2023
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
LPA No.25/2023, a/w CWP No. 2102/2016,
1393, 4012/2019, CWPOAs No. 29, 5352,
.
5545, 5685, 7665, 7673, 7890/2019, CWPs
No 2456, 2473, 3219, 3512, 3518/2020,
CWPOAs No. 227, 335, 339, 1051, 1296,
1796, 2081, 2115, 2208, 2320, 3260, 3758,
3764, 4055, 4348, 4656, 4659, 4661, 5000,
5021, 5704, 5849, 5854, 5858, 5873, 6075,
6247, 6648, 6752, 6914, 6931, 6933, 6942,
6953, 6954, 7081, 7082, 7467, 7535/2020,
r CWP No. 4195/2021, Ex. Pets. No.
252/2022 & 313/2022
Decided on: 12.4.2023.
1. LPA No. 25/2023
The Executive Engineer, HPPWD .....Petitioner
Versus
Sonki Ram ......Respondent
2. CWP No. 2102/2016
Bhop Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. .....Respondent
3. CWP No. 1393/2019
Rattan Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
.
4. CWP No. 4012/2019
Lekh Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
5. CWPOA No. 29/2019
Pratap Chand ....Petitioner
r Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
6. CWPOA No. 5352/2019
Anant Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
7. CWPOA No. 5545/2019
Gore ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
8. CWPOA No. 5685/2019
Mukand Lal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
9. CWPOA No. 7665/2019
.
Ramkali ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
10. CWPOA No. 7673/2019
Ramkali ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
11. CWPOA No. 7890/2019
Ramkali
r ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
12. CWP No. 2456/2020
Ruldu Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
13. CWP No. 2473/2020
Hira Nand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
14. CWP No. 3219/2020
Devender Singh ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
15. CWP No. 3512/2020
Shyam Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
16. CWP No. 3518/2020
Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
17. CWPOA No. 227/2020
Ram Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
18. CWPOA No. 335/2020
Inder Zin ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
19. CWPOA No. 339/2020
Mehandi Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
20. CWPOA No. 1051/2020
.
Badri ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
21. CWPOA No. 1296/2020
Parkash Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
22. CWPOA No. 1796/2020
Arjun Singh
r ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
23. CWPOA No. 2081/2020
Desh Raj ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
24. CWPOA No. 2115/2020
Man Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
25. CWPOA No. 2208/2020
Nardev Singh ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
26. CWPOA No. 2320/2020
Sher Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
27. CWPOA No. 3260/2020
Sunder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
28. CWPOA No. 3758/2020
Ravinder Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
29. CWPOA No. 3764/2020
Pratap Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
30. CWPOA No. 4055/2020
Ram Chander ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
31. CWPOA No. 4348/2020
.
Balak Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
32. CWPOA No. 4656/2020
Nankoo Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
33. CWPOA No. 4659/2020
Negi Devi
r ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
34. CWPOA No. 4661/2020
Brestu Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
35. CWPOA No. 5000/2020
Mangat Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
36. CWPOA No. 5021/2020
Basant Lal ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
37. CWPOA No. 5704/2020
Sirmaur Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
38. CWPOA No. 5849/2020
Gian Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
39. CWPOA No. 5854/2020
Gian Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
40. CWPOA No. 5858/2020
Babu Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
41. CWPOA No. 5873/2020
Ayat Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
42. CWPOA No. 6075/2020
.
Biri Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
43. CWPOA No. 6247/2020
Kunta Devi ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
44. CWPOA No. 6648/2020
Badri
r ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
45. CWPOA No. 6752/2020
Som Dutt ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
46. CWPOA No. 6914/2020
Amar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
47. CWPOA No. 6931/2020
Sant Ram ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
48. CWPOA No. 6933/2020
Netar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
49. CWPOA No. 6942/2020
Uttam Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
50. CWPOA No. 6953/2020
Gian Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
51. CWPOA No. 6954/2020
Amar Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
52. CWPOA No. 7081/2020
Besar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
53. CWPOA No. 7082/2020
.
Jai Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
54. CWPOA No. 7467/2020
Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
55. CWPOA No. 7535/2020
Sukh Ram
r ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. ..... Respondent
56. CWP No. 4195/2021
Jindu Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
57. Ex. P. No. 252/2022
Sehdev Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
58. Ex. P. No. 313/2022
Piyare Chand ....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. ..... Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Appellant/Petitioner(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with
Mr. I. N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G.,
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Addl.
r A.G., & Ms. Priyanka Chauhan,
Dy.A.G. for the appellant in LPA
No.25/2023.
M/s. Sandeep Pandey, A. K.
Gupta, Adarsh Kumar Vaishista,
Jai Dev Thakur, for the
respective petitioners.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate,
vice Mr. Rahul Mahajan,
Advocate, in LPA No. 25/2023
and Mr. Rajinder Thakur,
Advocate, in CWPOA No.
6648/2020.
Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. I.
N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G., Mr.
Ramakant Sharma, Addl. A.G.,
& Ms. Priyanka Chauhan,
Dy.A.G. for the respondents-
State in all the petitions.
_____________________________________________________________________
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)
Since common questions of law and facts are involved
.
in all these cases, therefore, they are taken up together for
hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2 Learned Advocate General, on instructions, states
that the State Government has now taken a conscious decision to
implement the judgment dated 26.7.2022 rendered by this
Court in CWP No. 2711/2017, titled as Baldev Singh vs.
State of H.P. & ors., decided on, 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
r 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, all these matters are disposed of with a
direction to the State to implement and grant the benefit of
aforesaid judgment as has been extended to the petitioner
therein, where it finds the claim(s) of each of the
petitioners/respondents, as the case may be, to be covered in
accordance with the judgment within a period of three months
from today.
4 Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
No order as to costs.
.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Virender Singh)
12.4.2023 Judge
(pankaj)
r to
