Himachal Pradesh High Court
Teja Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 30 September, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.11018 of 2024
Date of Decision : 30.09.2024
.
Teja Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
The 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 : r Mr. G.R. Palsra, 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) To quash and set-aside the office order dated 29.04.2023
Annexure P-1 keeping in view the law laid down by this
Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated 28-05-2024 passed in
CWP No.2274 of 2021 alongwith connected matter.
(ii) To reengage the petitioner as Class-IV (Peon-cum-
Chowkidar) in GSSS Mohini, District Kullu, H.P. from where
the petitioner has prematurely been retired vide office order
dated 29.04.2023 (Annexure P-1).
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
(iii) That to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner for
the period w.e.f. 30.04.2023 till the date of reengagement in
the interest of justice and fair play."
.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water
Carrier on 27.08.2002. The services of the petitioner were converted into
daily wager on 23.11.2012. Subsequent thereto, the services of the
petitioner were regularized as Class-IV (Peon- cum- Chowkidar) on
02.05.2017. On attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner was retired on
29.04.2023 vide Office Order, i.e., Annexure P-1.
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
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 29.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) is
quashed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in
service till he attains the age of 60 years.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
.
disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
September 30, 2024 (KS) Judge
r to
