Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On 15St July vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 15 July, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:5214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 2369 of 2023
Decided on 15st July, 2024
.
Simro Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner:
r Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) To extend the retirement age of the present
petitioner from 58 years to 60 years by holding
that the present petitioner who, is presently
working as Class-IV Government servant and
who had been appointed as part-time water
carrier on 10.08.2002, i.e. after 10.05.2001 and
regularized on or after 10.05.2001, is also
similarly situated to those who were appointed
prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after
10.05.2001, since she is discharging the same
and similar duties as those class -IV
employees, who had been appointed before
10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001
.
and hence shall also retire from service on the
afternoon of the last day of the month of the last
day of the month in which she attains the age of
60 years instead of 58 years;
(ii) The arbitrary, discriminatory, unjustified,
irrational, unreasonable and unconstitutional
cut-off date, i.e. the date of appointment with
regard to the part time/daily wages basis, being
10.05.2001, which has been taken to be the
criteria for increase in retirement age from 58 to
60 years, as mentioned in the notification dated
21.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), needs to be struck-
down, quashed and set aside to the extent as
claimed in the present petition and to extend
the retirement age of 60 years to the present
petitioner by holding that the present petitioner
is also same and similar duties and by holding
the cut-off date, i.e. the appointment date being
10.05.2001, is arbitrary, artificial, discriminatory,
unreasonable, unconstitutional and violative of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and has been applied selectively by
ignoring the Class-IV employees like the
present petitioner;
(iii) To struck-down, quash and set aside, cut-off
date, i.e. the date of appointment with regard to
the part time/daily wages basis, being
.
10.05.2001 (to the extent claimed above),
which has been taken to be the criteria for
increase in retirement age from 58 to 60 years,
as mentioned in the notification dated
21.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), by holding the
same to be arbitrary, artificial, discriminatory,
unreasonable, irrational, unfair,
unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India and to
extend the benefit of retirement age from 58
years to 60 years to the present petitioner;
(iv) The arbitrary and discriminatory cut-off date
being 10.05.2001, be struck-down, quashed
and set-aside and the notification, Annexure
P-2, should be made applicable/available to the
present petitioner as well, who had been
appointed on part-time basis on 10.08.2002, i.e.
after 10.05.2001;
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was engaged
as a Part-time Water Carrier in the Education Department w.e.f.
10.08.2002. It is further the case of the petitioner that her
services were regularized in the month of 2017. Her grievance
is that whereas the Class-IV employees have to be
superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years as per the
.
Instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh,
yet, the respondents retired her on attaining the age of 58
years. These facts are not disputed by the respondents in their
reply. However, according to the stand of the respondents,
because, the petitioner was appointed and regularized after
10.05.2001, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the
enhancement on the age of superannuation.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioner has drawn the
attention of the Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled as
Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.05.2004 and
submitted that now this issue also, as to whether the
employees engaged after 10.05.2001, are entitled for the same
age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years, is no more res integra and
Hon'ble Division Bench has been pleased to hold that the
distinction sought to be made between the employees engaged
prior to 10.05.2001 and those engaged after 10.05.2001, does
not holds judicial scrutiny.
4. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed
.
by Hon'ble Division Bench and in Para-116 thereof, Hon'ble
Division Bench has been pleased to hold that the distinction
made between the employees for the purpose of the age of
superannuation on the basis of date of appointment does not
holds judicial scrutiny and the cut of date i.e. 10.05.2001
contained in notification dated 21.02.2018 is arbitrary.
5. In view of adjudication so made by Hon'ble Division
Bench, the act of the respondents of superannuating the
petitioner at the age of 58 years is indeed bad, this writ petition
is disposed of by holding that the act of the respondents of
retiring the petitioner as a Class-IV employee at the age of 58
years is bad in law and she has to be retired on attaining the
age of 60 years. It is directed that the petitioner shall be
reengaged forthwith till she completed the age of 60 years. Till
the date of her engagement, she will be paid compensation
equal to the total emoluments which she would have received,
had she been in service after attaining the age of 58 years. Let,
the amount due to him be paid within a period of three months
from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 15, 2024
(Vinod)
r to
