Hari Dass vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14441 HP

                                                  1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                      CWPOA No. 5915 of 2020
                                      Date of Decision: September 22, 2023




                                                                             .

    Hari Dass                                                                  ...Petitioner.

                                               Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & another                                        .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

    For the Petitioner:               None for the petitioner.

    For the Respondents:              Mr.Anup    Rattan,  Advocate   General,
                                      alongwith Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Additional
                                      Advocate General.



    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

Petitioner has approached this Court claiming his

right for extension of benefit of service up to 60 years, on the

basis of Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013, whereby

retirement age of blind persons was enhanced from 58 years to

60 years.

2. Petitioner had joined service on 11.02.1966 and

retired on attaining the age of 58 years, i.e. on 31.01.2005.

Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013 was withdrawn by Office

Memorandum dated 04.11.2019 with immediate effect. As on

date, Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2013, is not in existence.

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

3. As apparent from the record, Office Memorandum

dated 29.03.2013 was issued after retirement of the petitioner.

Any decision taken subsequent to retirement, by the

.

Government extending benefit of extension in age of retirement

shall not be applicable to the retired employee. The person, who

had already retired, in absence of explicit and retrospective

operation of extension of benefit, cannot claim right of benefit of

Office Memorandum or for extension of benefit extended after

his retirement.

4. In present petition petitioner has completed 60 years

of age in the year 2007 whereas office Memorandum extending

the age of retirement was issued in the year 2013. Therefore,

even with retrospective operation of this decision, petitioner

would get nothing for attaining of age of 60 years before

29.03.2013.

5. Therefore, we do not find any merit in present

petition and the same is dismissed.

Pending application(s), also stand disposed of.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

(Bipin Chander Negi), Judge.

September 22, 2023 (Purohit)