Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. And Others on 6 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 9456 of 2024
Decided on: 06.09.2024
____________________________________________________
Amra Devi ........... petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others respondents
.
______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.
A.K. Gupta, 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 petitioner was engaged as a part-time Water Carrier
in the Education Department in the year 2006. Services of the
petitioner were regularized on 24.06.2017. Admittedly in the case hand,
petitioner was a class-IV employee. On attaining the age of 58 years,
the petitioner was retired on 28.02.2022.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision dated
22.02.2022, passed in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled Baldev vs. State
of H.P. and others.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically drawn
attention of this Court to direction No.(iii) contained in the aforesaid
judgment. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced herein below:-
"Since these employees have not actually worked
beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of
wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the
date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of
their retirement. However, they will be entitled to
notional fixation of their pay for the period in
question for working out their payable pension and
payment of consequential arrears of pension
.
accordingly".
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/State fairly submits that the case at hand of the petitioner
is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Baldev's case.
6. In view thereof, petition is allowed. The petitioner is
deemed to have retired at the age of 60 years. Since the petitioner has
not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, the
petitioner will not be entitled to actual monetary benefits of
wages/salary for the period of service from the date of their actual
retirement till deemed dates of his retirement. Consequential benefits
granted to the petitioner be released within a period of six months from
today, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to interest thereupon as
6%.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
September 06, 2024
tarun
