Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pawna Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 4 October, 2024
1
( 2024:HHC:9564 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11272 of 2024
Date of Decision : 04.10.2024
Pawna Kumari ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
......Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Notice. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate
General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following
substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be
issued and office order dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure P-2)
may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as a peon
and allow her to complete the service till the age of 60
years in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the
respondents to release all the consequential benefits
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
( 2024:HHC:9564 )
arising out of the judgment passed in CWP No.2274/2024
a/w connected matters titled as Satya Devi & others versus
State of H.P. & others in favour of the petitioner."
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water
Carrier on 19.03.2008. Subsequent thereto, the services of the petitioner
were regularized on 23.04.2021 as a Class-IV employee. On attaining the
age of 58 years, the petitioner was retired on 30.12.2023 vide Office Order,
i.e., Annexure P-2.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended along-with present petition.
5. The State vide Notification dated 21.02.2018 had made a
distinction between Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and
those engaged after 10.05.2001 for the purpose of determining the age of
their retirement. Those Class IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001
were retired after attaining the age of 60 years and those Class IV
employees engaged after 10.05.2001 were retired after attaining the age of
58 years. The aforesaid notification come up for consideration before this
Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 along with connected matters, titled Satya
Devi vs. State of H.P. & others along with connected matters, decided on
28.05.2024. Therein, the Notification dated 21.02.2018 was quashed. It
was further ordered that all Class-IV employees (government servants)
irrespective of their dates of appointment would now retire after attaining
( 2024:HHC:9564 )
the age of 60 years. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment is being
reproduced here-in-below:
"118. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons we strike down the
words "appointed on part time/daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001
and regularized on or after 10.5.2001" in the notification dt.
21.02.2018 and declare that all class-IV Government servants
irrespective of their initial date of engagement or the date of their
regularization would retire on the last day of the month in which they
attain the age of their superannuation of 60 years.
119. All the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
Such of the petitioners/Class IV Government servants who had
retired from service prior to attaining age of superannuation of 60
years, shall be reinstated by the respondents if they have not
crossed the age of 60 years as on date. Others who will not be able
to be reinstated now on ground that they have already attained the
age of 60 years, shall be paid compensation equal to the total
emoluments which they would have received had they been in
service until they attained the age of 60 years, less any amount they
might have received by way of pension., etc. They will also be
entitled to consequential retiral benefits. These shall be paid within 3
months from today. Those who are continuing in service by virtue of
interim orders passed by this Court shall continue in service till they
attain the age of 60 years. No costs."
6. It is stated by the learned counsel on both sides that the issue
involved in this petition is covered by the judgment delivered on 28.05.2024
in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and others
and batch of cases.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid judgment. Office Order dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) is
( 2024:HHC:9564 )
quashed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in
service till she attains the age of 60 years.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
October 04, 2024 (KS/Nisha) Judge
