Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Hp & Anr on 20 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.1332/2025.
Date of Decision: 20th January, 2025.
Satish Kumar .....Petitioner.
Versus
State HP & Anr. .....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Harinder Rawat, Addl. Advocate
General.
Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral).
Notice. Mr. Harinder Rawat, 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 the petitioner may kindly be
held entitled to continue in service till his
attaining the age of 60 years for
superannuation on 30.04.2026 and the
respondents may kindly be directed to
reinstate him until his actual
superannuation at the age of 60 years as
per the judgment passed by this Hon’ble
Court dated 28.05.2024 at Annexure P-3.
1(i)(a). That the impugned order dated
30.04.2024 at Annexure P2, whereby the
petitioner has been ordered to be retired
on attaining the age of 58 years instead
of 60 years, may kindly be quashed and
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2
set aside and the petitioner may kindly
be permitted to work till attaining the
age of 60 years in terms of the judgment
passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP
No.2274/2021 titled as “Satya Devi Vs.
State of HP & Ors. along with connected
matters, in the interest of justice.”
.
3. The petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as
Beldar. Later on, the petitioner was appointed as Beldar
on temporary basis in the Department of Jal Shakti Vibhag
vide order dated 21.10.2013. Admittedly, in the case at
hand, petitioner is a Class-IV Employee. He stood retired
on 30.04.2024 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
along with connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024.
Therein the Notification dated 21.02.2018 was quashed. It
3
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
the judgment delivered on 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274
4
of 2021 (Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and others) and
batch of cases.
6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.04.2024
(Annexure P-2) 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 he
attains the age of 60 years.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
(Bipin Chander Negi)
Vacation Judge
20th January, 2025
(Gaurav Rawat)
[ad_1]
Source link