Durga Devi vs State Hp & Ors on 21 January, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Durga Devi vs State Hp & Ors on 21 January, 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.1333/2025.

Date of Decision: 21st January, 2025.

      Durga Devi                                                   .....Petitioner.
                                           Versus

     State HP & Ors.                                              .....Respondents.
     Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr.
Maan Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Addl.

Advocate General.

Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral).

Notice. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, learned Addl.

Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on

behalf of the respondents.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i). That Annexure P-1 may be quashed
and set aside and the respondents may
be directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service forthwith.

(ii). That the respondent may kindly be
directed to grant compensation equal to
the total emoluments which petitioner
would have received had she been in
service after 30.09.2024 and till
reinstatement in service in terms of
judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in
CWP No/2274/2021 titled as Satya Devi
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh as

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2

mentioned in the para 119 of the
judgment (reproduced above).

(iii) That the petitioner be held entitled to
all the benefits with effect from
01.10.2024 till the date of reinstatement
in service and may be ordered to be
released in her favour.”

3. The petitioner was engaged on part-time as Water

Career on 07.09.2002. The services of the petitioner were

converted into daily wage basis on 27.11.2012.

Subsequent thereto, vide office order dated 24.08.2017,

the services of the present petitioner were regularized.

Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner is a Class-IV

Employee. She stood retired on 30.09.2024 on attaining

the age of 58 years.

4. 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
3

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 dated 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.”

5. It is stated by the learned counsel on both

sides that the issue involved in this petition is covered by
4

the judgment delivered on 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274

of 2021 (Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and others) and

batch of cases.

6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.09.2024

(Annexure P-1) is quashed and writ petition is disposed of

in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the respondents

are directed to continue the petitioner in service till she

attains the age of 60 years.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

also stand disposed of.

(Bipin Chander Negi)
Vacation Judge
21st January, 2025
(Gaurav Rawat)