Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shyam Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 11 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No: 2289 of 2025
Decided on: 11.02.2025
Shyam Lal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
...Respondents
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, VACATION JUDGE
WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?
For the petitioner : Mr. C.D.Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocate General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the
following prayer:
(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow
the petitioner to continue his service till the age of 60
years being ClassIV employee, as per the judgment
rendered by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 2274 of
2021, Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Ors. and the
other connected matters."
2. Grievance is that the petitioner was initially
engaged as Part Time Worker on 15.10.2001 as Sweeper and
his services were regularized on 30.08.2017 and in terms of
mandate of this Court, in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as
Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others
decided on 28.05.2024, the petitioner has a right to continue
in service up to the age of 60 years i.e. [31.03.2027] for which
the petitioner has made a representation dated 20.01.2025
[Annexure P1] to Executive Engineer, Division No. II, HPPWD
Shimla but despite this, the respondents are taking steps to
relieve the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years on
31.03.2025, in violation of mandate in Satya Devi's case
(supra).
3. Upon listing of this case Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocate General, waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that the claim of
the petitioner for continuityreinstatement as in
representation dated 20.01.2025 [Annexure P1], in terms of
the judgment in Satya Devi's case (supra), shall be examined
by the competent authority, in accordance with law, and if
the case of the petitioner is found to be similarly placed, then
appropriate orders in accordance with law shall be passed.
5. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and
circumstances and with the consent of Learned Counsels for
the parties herein, this Court disposes of the instant writ
petition, at this stage, leaving all questions open, with the
following directions:
(i). Respondent No.2 Executive Engineer,
Division No. II, HPPWD Shimla shall examine
the claim of the petitioner as in representation
dated 20.01.2025 [Annexure P1], for continuity
in service upto the age of 60 years in terms of
the judgment passed by the Principal Division
Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 2274 of 2021
Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others decided on 28.05.2024, in
accordance with law, after affording personal
hearing to petitioner within three weeks from
today;
(ii). Upon consideration, if the claim of petitioner is
found to be similarly placed and covered in
terms of the judgment in Satya Devi's case
(supra), then, further consequential action of
continuity/reinstatement and admissible service
benefits to petitioner be taken by Respondents
within the aforesaid period;
(iii) Parties to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well
as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Vacation Judge
February 11, 2025
(Shamsh Tabrez)
