Fayaz Ahamad vs HRTC and Another

V.K. Ahuja, J.—The Petitioner filed the present Original Application u/s 19 of the H.P. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and on the abolition of the Tribunal, the said Application stood transferred to this Court and has been registered as a writ petition.

The Petitioner alleged that he was initially appointed as Blacksmith on 2.10.1974 and was promoted to the post of Senior Blacksmith on 25.5.1995 and he stood retired from the said post, on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years, on 29.2.2004. The Petitioner in the petition alleged that the age of retirement for government servants has been prescribed at 58 years while under FR 56(b), the age of retirement for a workman has been prescribed as 60 years. Thus, the Petitioner claimed the following reliefs:

i) to quash the action of the Respondents in retiring the applicant at the age of 58 years as arbitrary and illegal being violative of the statutory provisions.

ii) to direct the Respondents to retire the applicant under the provisions of FR 56(b) with all consequential benefits including interest @ 12% per annum on the deferential wages and other retiral benefits to which he would have been entitled had they retired at the age of 60 years.

Notice of the petition was issued to the Respondents, who filed reply.

Earlier the Original Application was allowed by the State Administrative Tribunal and the said order was recalled as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a Review Petition and the Original Application was directed to be registered as a writ petition. This is how the matter is before us for consideration.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

It is clear from the pleadings that the Petitioner has alleged that he comes under the definition of a workman and as such he is entitled to be retired under FR 56(b) on attaining the age of 60 years. He did not place on record the relevant Rules or any copy of the notification issued by the Respondent Corporation that the Blacksmiths are covered under the definition of workmen and they will retire at the age of 60 years.

In reply filed by the Respondents, they have specifically pleaded that the Respondents have adopted the age of superannuation of their employees as that of the H.P. Government employees, which had been fixed at 58 years. They have also placed on record the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-I, II, II & IV) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1996 (First Amendment), relevant extract of which is as follows:

AGE OF SUPERANNUATION:

Age of superannuation of the member of the service will continue to be the same as in the case of Himachal Pradesh Government Employees from time to time.

To substantiate his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision in Prithipal Singh Vs. Union of India, In that case, there were observations made by their Lordships that the job of a Driver is that of, admittedly, a skilled and semi skilled person and, therefore, the definition of word "artisan" is wide enough to include a driver of a car. However, the question was not finally decided but was sent back to the Central Administrative Tribunal for reconsideration in view of the evidence to be placed before it.

This question had also been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1721 of 2009, titled Rajinder Parshad v. HRTC and another, decided on 17.6.2009. In that case, the question for consideration was also in regard to the employees of the HRTC and it was held that Class III employees were to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. It was observed that the Civil Service Rules were applicable to the employees of the HRTC and as per these Rules, Class III employees are to retire at the age of 58 years.

In the present case, the Petitioner has alleged that he was serving the Respondents as Senior Blacksmith when he retired at the age of 58 years and the he is not covered by the definition of artisan, but the Petitioner has failed to produce on record any separate rules framed in this regard to retire such employees at the age of 60 years. Therefore, keeping in view the reply filed by the Respondents and the fact that there is no notification on record that such employees would retire at the age of 60 years, there is no merit in the petition filed by the Petitioner, which is liable to be dismissed accordingly. Moreover, the Petitioner had filed the Original Application before the Tribunal after a considerable lapse of time and as such the petition was not well in time. He could have approached the Court before attaining the age of superannuation. Neither he worked for the period nor he can be re-employed even if it is held that the age of superannuation was 60 years.

In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the present petition, which stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.