Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 09.09.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 9 September, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:8149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 25 of 2024
Decided on : 09.09.2024
Anil Kumar Sharma
.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioners : Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be
issued for quashing the impugned Annexure P-4 whereby
the petitioner is proposed to be retired from service on
31.12.2023.
ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly
be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner
to perform his duties in respondent organization upto the
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:8149
age of 60 years i.e. up to 31.12.2025, in the interest of
justice."
2. Reply to the petition stands filed.
.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed
on daily wage basis in the office of DIET Nahan under DPEP on
05.11.1997. The services of the petitioner were thereafter
brought on contract basis and continued as such, in terms of
Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3, appended with the petition.
The services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2011.
4. The petitioner has come to the Court feeling
aggrieved by the fact that in terms of Annexure P-4,
communication dated 27.12.2023, he was intimated by the
Department that he would be retired on attaining the age of 58
years on 31.12.2023.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in the light of the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court lately in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 a/w
connected matters, titled Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors,
a/w connected matters, decided on 29.04.2024, the act of the
respondents of superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58
2024:HHC:8149
years cannot be sustained as Hon'ble Division Bench has
clearly and categorically held that a Class-IV employee,
whether regularized on or after 10.05.2001, irrespective of the
.
initial date of engagement or the date of regularization, would
retire on the last day of the month in which he attained the age
of superannuation of 60 years. Accordingly, she prays that the
petition be allowed, Annexure P-4 be quashed and set aside
and respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue
to serve till the last day of the month till he shall attain the age
of 60 years.
6. Learned Deputy Advocate General by relying upon
the reply has submitted that as the petitioner was engaged on
08.07.2003 i.e., after 10.05.2001, he was rightly retired on
attaining the age of 58 years. However, the factum of the
adjudication by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Satya
Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (supra), has not been disputed.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and
also perused the pleadings and the documents appended
therewith. I have also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. &
2024:HHC:8149
Ors. (supra).
8. The moot issue before this Court is as to whether
the Department is justified in superannuating the petitioner on
.
attaining the age of 58 years. For completion of facts, it is
necessary to mention that in terms of the order passed by this
Court on 01.08.2024, the respondents were directed to
reengage the petitioner, as the petitioner has not attained the
age of 60 years and this order has been complied with.
9. The stand of the Department is that as the petitioner
was appointed on 08.07.2003 under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan,
after DPEP project where he was initially engaged was bound
up in the year 2003, the petitioner was rightly retired after
attaining the age of 58 years because in terms of the
notification dated 21.02.2018 issued by the State, Class-IV
employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001, were to superannuate
on attaining the age of 60 years, whereas, those engaged after
10.05.2001, were to superannuate on attaining the age of 58
years. This is the only defence of the respondents.
10. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi
Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (supra), while deciding the vires of
2024:HHC:8149
notification dated 21.02.2018, held that the distinction sought to
be made in notification dated 21.02.2018, between Class-IV
employees engaged prior to 10.05.2021 and 10.05.2001, does
.
not stand judicial scrutiny and touchstone of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India Hon'ble Division Bench held that the cut of
date of 10.05.2001, in the notification dated 21.02.2018 was
arbitrary. Hon'ble Division Bench further held that there ought to
be same age of superannuation, prescribed for all Class-IV
employees i.e., 60 years. Accordingly, after striking down the
words "appointed on part time/daily wage basis prior to
10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001", of
notification dated 21.02.2018, Hon'ble Division Bench declared
that all Class-IV 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 attained the age of their
superannuation of 60 years.
11. In the light of the said adjudication, the act of the
respondents of superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58
years cannot be sustained and is hereby held to be bad in law.
As a consequence thereof, Annexure P-4 is quashed and set
2024:HHC:8149
aside. As the petitioner was always willing to perform duties
after attaining the age of 58 years but it was the Department
which prevented him from doing so and he has been
.
reengaged only by virtue of the interim order passed by this
Court, it is further ordered that the petitioner shall be deemed to
be in continuous service of the Department with all
consequential benefits including monetary and seniority etc. It
is further ordered that now the petitioner shall be allowed to
serve and he shall be superannuated on the last day of the
month in which he shall attain the age of superannuation of 60
years. With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
September 09, 2024
(Shivank Thakur)
