Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: 16.10.2024 vs State Of H.P. & Another on 16 October, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:9876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 5959 of 2024
Decided on: 16.10.2024
Bali Ram ... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & another ... Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
___________________________________________________ _
For the petitioner : Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate
General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) That in view of the facts and circumstances
mentioned hereinabove in this writ petition, the writ
petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent No.2
may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue
till the age of 60."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the
respondent-Department as a Part Time Water Carrier in the year
2002. His services were earlier brought on daily wage basis by the
respondent-Department and thereafter his services were regularized
vide Annexure P-1, dated 17.03.2017. His grievance in this Writ
petition is that the Authorities were intending to superannuate the
petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years, which act of the
respondents as per the petitioner was bad as the petitioner being a
Class-IV employee was entitled for continuation in service till the age
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:9876
of 60 years.
3. The reply filed by the State to the Writ petition
demonstrates that the stand of the Department therein is that
because the petitioner was engaged and regularized after
10.05.2021, therefore, he is rightly be superannuated on attaining
the age of 58 years, because in terms of the Notification dated
21.02.2018 which is on record as Annexure P-2 with the Writ
petition, though an incumbent regularized on or after 10.05.2001
has a right to be superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years,
but this right is accruable only to those who were in service as on
21.02.2018 and who stood engaged before 10.05.2001.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended
therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the
respondents of superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years
is not sustainable in law.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving the
Department as a class-IV employee. Incidentally, before the issuance
of Notification, dated 21.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), the incumbents
who were engaged before 10.05.2001 and regularized after
10.05.2001, were also being superannuated on attaining age of 58
years. After coming into force of this Notification the incumbents
who were appointed on part-time/daily wage basis prior to
10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001, were given the
2024:HHC:9876
benefit of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. The vires
of this cut-off date was tested by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the
Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. &
others, alongwith other connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024.
In this judgment, Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that
the distinction sought to be made vide Notification dated 21.02.2018
between Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and those
engaged after 10.05.2001 does not stand any judicial scrutiny and
touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and cut-off date
of 10.05.2001 in the Notification was arbitrary. Hon'ble Division
Bench thereafter went on to hold that there ought to be same age of
superannuation prescribed for all Class-IV employees, i.e. 60 years.
Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to strike down the words
"appointed on part timer/ daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and
regularized on or after 10.05.2001" in the Notification dated
21.02.2018 and Hon'ble Division Bench declared 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.
6. Coming back to the facts of this case, in the backdrop
of what has been discussed hereinabove, the stand primarily
taken in the reply by the respondent-Department is that because
the initial appointment of the petitioner on part-time basis was
2024:HHC:9876
after the amendment was carried out by the Government in
Fundamental Rule-56 vide Notification dated 10.05.2001,
therefore, the petitioner was rightly being superannuated on
attaining the age of 58 years. As Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court has been pleased to hold that every Class-IV employees de
hors the fact as to what the date of initial engagement was as a
right to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, the act
of the respondents of denying the right to the petitioner to
continue to serve till the age of 60 years is not sustainable in law.
The reason being spelled out that because the petitioner was
engaged after the issuance of Notification dated 10.05.2001,
therefore, he has to retire at the age of 58 years does not holds the
test of reasonableness more so in light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi versus State of H.P.
(supra).
7. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this
Writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of
superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years is held to be
bad in law and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner
to continue to serve till the last day of the month in which the
petitioner attains the age of superannuation of 60 years. The
stands petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
2024:HHC:9876
October 16, 2024
(Rishi)
BHUPEND
DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA,
Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b89ecc4a0c8f8a66ab9
7285dc56e62d41fe, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh,
SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7bd5fa9b09
937769da5501e1f4e7ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMAR
ER KUMAR Reason: I am approving this document with my legally binding
signature
Location:
Date: 2024-10-17 19:28:18
