Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Others on 27 September, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 11031 of 2024
Decided on: 27.09.2024
____________________________________________________
Lot Ram ........... 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. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional
Advocate General. :
____________________________________________________
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
Notice. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional
Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"I To quash and set aside the office order dated
31.03.2023 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 Govt. Sr. Sec. School Pujali,
District Kullu, H.P. from where the petitioner has
prematurely been retired vide office order dated
31.05.2023 (Annexure P-1).
(iii) That to grant all consequential benefits to the
petitioner for the period w.e.f. 01.06.2023 till the date
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
of reengagement in the interest of justice and fair
play.
2. The petitioner was engaged as a Part Time Water
Carrier on 24.08.2002. Subsequent thereto, the services of the
.
petitioner were converted into daily wager on 23.11.2012.
Thereafter his services were regularized as a Class-IV (Peon-
cum-Chowkidar) on 02.05.2017. On attaining the age of 58 years,
the petitioner was retired on 31.05.2023 vide Annexure P-1.
3. 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."
4. 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.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms
of the aforesaid judgment and the respondents are directed to
continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60
years. The office order dated 31.05.2023 i.e. Annexure P-1 is
quashed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Judge
.
September 27, 2024
tarun
r to
