Chaman Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 16163 HP

                                                1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                    CWPOA No.6432 of 2020

                                    Date of Decision: October 12, 2023




                                                                           .
    Chaman Lal                                                                ...Petitioner.





                                             Versus

    State of Himachal Pradesh & others                                      ..Respondents.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
    For the Petitioner:             Mr.Tanuj Thakur, Advocate.
    For the Respondents:            Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
                                    alongwith Mr.Manoj Chauhan, Additional
                      r             Advocate General, for respondent No.1.
                                    None for respondents No.2 to 4.

    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

Petitioner was appointed as daily waged Beldar with

respondent-H.P. Housing and Urban Development Authority

(HIMUDA) on 26.03.1991 and his services were regularized in the

year 2007.

2. On attaining the age of 58 years, petitioner was to

retire on 31.03.2019. Whereas petitioner, placing reliance upon

Notification dated 21.02.2018 issued by the Government of

Himachal Pradesh Finance (Regulations) Department (Annexure A-

3), was claiming that he was to retire on attaining the age of 60

years on 31.03.2021.

3. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner filed

present petition before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative

Tribunal immediately prior to his retirement on 07.03.2019.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

4. As per Notification (Annexure A-3) it was provided that

Class-IV Government servant appointed on part-time/daily wage

basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001

.

shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the

month in which he attains the age of 60 years.

5. Undisputedly, though respondent-HIMUDA is an

authority falling in definition of "State" under Article 12 of the

Constitution of India, however, is an independent entity, having its

own Regulations governing services of its employees either by

adopting the Rules and Regulations/Notification issued by the

Government of Himachal Pradesh or taking an independent decision

without adopting the same. In present case, stand of HIMUDA,

which remains unrebutted, is that HIMUDA has not adopted the

Policy of the State notified vide Notification dated 21.02.2018.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on

judgment dated 30.01.2023, passed in CWP No.448 of 2023, titled

as Phoolan Devi vs. HIMUDA & others, has submitted that in case of

similarly situated person Phoolan Devi HIMUDA was directed to

consider and decide her representation for deploying her for 2 years

after retirement on outsource basis on the fixed consolidated pay.

This direction was issued in furtherance to the approval of the

Chairman, whereby it was decided that instead of adopting the

Notification of the Government dated 21.02.2018, Class-IV

employees, after retirement at the age of 58 years may be

deployed on outsource basis for two years.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring judgment

dated 26.07.2022, passed in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev

vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, has also contended that

there cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated

Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class, with

.

further submission that Phoolan Devi and present petitioner

Chaman Lal, are similarly situated employees belonging to the

same Class.

8. In view of the fact that HIMUDA has not adopted

Notification dated 21.02.2018, claim of the petitioner to continue in

service till attaining the age of 60 years, was and is not tenable

and, thus, he has been rightly retired on 31.03.2019.

9. Claim of the petitioner, to engage him on outsource

basis till attaining the age of 60 years, is also not tenable at this

stage, as he has already completed 60 years of age on 31.03.2021

and, thus, even after considering the prayer to mould the relief, no

relief can be granted to the petitioner, in alternative plea, as has

been granted by the Court in Phoolan Devi's case.

10. In view of above discussion, present petition deserves

to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Accordingly, same is

dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

(Bipin Chander Negi), Judge.

October 12, 2023 (Purohit)