Chhajju Ram vs State of H.P. and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer:

That Respondents may very kindly be directed to re-engage the Petitioner in service till the date of attaining age of 60 years with all consequential benefits with further directions to the Respondents to treat the period for which Petitioner remained out of job i.e. after 31.5.2011 to till the re-engagement, as in service period for all intends and purposes.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court in CWP No. 5749 of 2010, decided on 25.10.2010 submits that being a daily-wager, appointed prior to 10.05.2001, he is entitled to continue till he attains the age of 60 years. We have held in many cases that the said decision in Lachhi Ram v. State of H.P. and Ors. Does not reflect the correct position of law. It shall be judgment rendered in per incuriam. While deciding the said case, the statutory provisions were not brought to the notice of this Court. What was brought to the notice of this Court was only the notification pertaining to the retirement age of daily-wagers. It was in that context that this Court held that the workmen, be that regular or otherwise, appointed prior to 10.05.2001, would continue up to 60 years. The statutory provisions under Rule 56 is crystal clear that only a Class-IV Government servant, appointed prior to 10.05.2001, will be entitled to continue up to 60 years. Admittedly, the Petitioner became a Class-IV Government servant in the year 2007; therefore, he has to retire at the age of 58 years. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any.