Himachal Pradesh High Court
Desh Raj vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 9712 of 2024
Date of Decision: 10.09.2024
.
Desh Raj .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. & others .....Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. R.K.Negi, Additional Advocate
General.
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Numerous substantive reliefs have been sought by the
present petitioner. However, the present petitioner limits his
prayer to prayers No. 1 & 2., which are reproduced here-in-
below:-
"i). Issue a writ of Mandamus, Certiorari or other
appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the
retirement order dated 31.08.2020 ( i.e. Annexure P-
4) for all intents and purposes.
ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate
writ, order or direction by directing the respondents
department to treat the retirement age of the
petitioner as 31.08.2022 i.e. 60 years in terms of the
judgment dated 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of
2021 title Satya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
& others for all intents and purposes and release the
salary as well as retiral benefits in the favour of
petitioner along with 12% interest."
2. The petitioner was appointed as a part-timer Water
Career on 26.04.2002. Subsequent thereto, on 27.11.2012 the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
services of the petitioner were converted on daily wage basis by
the respondents. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were
.
regularized on 16.03.2017 vide impugned Annexure P-4. The
petitioner was retired at the age of 58 years on 31.08.2020.
Admittedly, the petitioner, in the case at hand is a Class-IV
employee. Being a Class-IV employee, the petitioner submits that
he should have been permitted to have continued in service till he
attained the age of 60 years.
3. to
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 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 Additional Advocate General 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. Annexure P-4 dated
31.08.2020 is quashed. 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 his 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 @ 6%.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
September 10, 2024
(Nisha)
