Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mahender Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 8 July, 2024

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Review Petition No.53 of 2024 Date of decision: 08.07.2024

    Mahender Singh                                                    ....Petitioner





                                           Versus





    State of H.P. and others                                           ....Respondents

    Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate r General, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila

Patial, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(Oral):

The instant review petition is directed against the order

dated 22.04.2024, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.7009 of 2020,

titled as Mahender Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, whereby the

petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by directing the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the

judgment rendered by learned Full Bench of this Court in CWP

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

.

and others, decided on 22.02.2022.

2. The review is primarily sought on the ground that the case

of the petitioner in fact was ought to have been directed to be

considered in light of the judgment rendered by the erstwhile HP

Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1004/2015, titled as Krishan

Chand vs. State of H.P., decided on 10.01.2018, which judgment, in

turn, was upheld by this Court in CWP No.1577 of 2018, titled as State

of H.P. vs. Krishan Chand and eventually upheld by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court with the dismissal of the SLP filed by the State, vide

order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to this effect on

13.09.2019 in (SLP(c) D. No.18076/2019).

3. We have gone through the records of the case and find

that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile

Tribunal by filing the original application being O.A. No.2636/2019,

which on the closure of the Tribunal, came to be registered as CWPOA

No.7009/2020 and the petitioner therein had claimed the following

substantive reliefs:-

"(i) That the office order No.9/HPSEBL/2019 dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure A-6) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside with exemplary costs.

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

(ii) That the respondent-State may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of enhancement of

retirement age from 58 to 60 years to the

locomotor impaired to which category the applicant belongs, as specified under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal

Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to

treat the applicant in service till he attains the age of 60 years and the respondents may further be directed to release all the consequential benefits to the applicant with upto date interest @ 12% r per annum."

4. Now, in case office order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure

A-6) is seen, it would be noticed that this is an order which was

passed by the respondent-Board on the directions passed by the

erstwhile Tribunal in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner herein in

O.A. No.994/2019. Respondent-Board, at the relevant time, had

rejected the contention of the petitioner regarding his case being

covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP

No.1577/2018, titled State of H.P. vs. Krishan Chand, primarily on

the ground that the judgment passed by this Court had not attained

finality as the SLP filed by the State against the said judgment was still

pending consideration. The ratio laid down in Baldev's case (supra),

as directed by this Court, was nowhere in question as the case is