Tuesday, 21, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ms. Durga Wati vs State Of H.P. & Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 12722 HP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12722 HP
Judgement Date : 30 September, 2024

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ms. Durga Wati vs State Of H.P. & Another on 30 September, 2024

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                CWP No. 11096 of 2024
                                                Date of Decision: 30.09.2024




                                                                                  .
    Ms. Durga Wati                                                      .....Petitioner.





                                        Versus
    State of H.P. & another                                           .....Respondents.





    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1

    For the petitioner:                Mr. Balwant Singh 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. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

" (i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents to reinstate the services of the petitioner immediately in view of

judgment dated 28.05.2024 in case CWP No. 2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others with all consequential service benefits in the

interest of justice.

ii) That the respondent department may kindly be directed to decide the representation filed by the

petitioner within time bound manner."

3. The petitioner was engaged on part-time as Water Career

on 13.05.2002 and her services were brought on whole timer in

the year 2012. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2017, the services

of the present petitioner were regularized. Admittedly, in the case

at hand, the petitioner is a Class-IV employee. She stand retired

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

on 30.03.2024, vide Annexure P-1 on attaining the age of 58

years.

.

4. 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 alongwith connected

matters, titled Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others alongwith

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."

5. 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 (Satya Devi vs. State of

H.P and others) and batch of cases.

6. Accordingly, order dated 30.03.2024 ( annexure P-1) is

quashed and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the

aforesaid judgment and 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) Judge

September 30, 2024 (Nisha)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter