Naro Devi vs State Of H P and Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner being Class IV to continue to serve till she reaches 60 years of age.

(b) That the respondents may be directed not to retire the Petitioner at 58 years of age.

(c) That the Respondents may be directed to consider the pending representation dated 04th June, before 30th June, 2024 before she reaches 58 years as per service records.”

Reply to the writ petition stands filed. No rejoinder is intended to be filed to the same.

The grievance of the petitioner when she approached the Court was that despite her being a class-IV employee, the respondent-employer was superannuating her on attaining the age of 58 years, which act of the employer was bad in light of the fact that the petitioner being a Class-IV employee was entitled to continue to serve the Department till attaining the age of 60 years.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others and other connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024, submitted that as Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to categorically held that all class-IV employees, de hors of their date of engagement or date of regularization, are entitled to serve the State till they attain the age of 60 years, therefore, the act of the respondents of not permitting the petitioner to continue to serve till the age of 60 years is bad. He accordingly prayed that the petition be allowed by issuing a mandamus to the State to permit the petitioner to continue to serve till she attains the age of 60 years.

Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the respondent-State was correct in its decision of not allowing the petitioner to continue to serve after the age of 58 years, as in the present case, the petitioner was engaged after 10.05.2001 and therefore, she had no right to continue after attaining the age of 58 years.

When this case was listed before this Court on 24.06.2024, interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner and she continues to serve on the strength of said interim order even after attaining the age of 58 years.

The moot issue involved in this petition as to whether the respondents were justified in taking the decision of superannuating the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years or whether the petitioner had a right to serve the Department till she attains the age of 60 years?

As per the respondents, the reason as to why the employer intended to superannuate the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years was that as engagement of the petitioner was after 10.05.2001, therefore, she had no right to continue to serve after attaining the age of 58 years, as according to the respondents, only those employees who were engaged before 10.05.2001, had a right to continue to serve till the age of 60 years.

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. and others and other connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024, has clearly and categorically held that distinction sought to be made between Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and those engaged after 10.05.2001 does not stand judicial scrutiny and touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hon’ble Division Bench thereafter went on to hold that the cut-off-date of 10.05.2001 in the notification dated 21.02.2018 was arbitrary. Hon’ble Division Bench also held that there ought to be same age of superannuation prescribed for all class-IV employees, i.e. 60 years. The petitions were disposed of by Hon’ble Division Bench in the following terms:-

“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 56 regularized on or after 10.5.2001” in the notification dt. 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.

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.”

In light of pronouncement of Hon’ble Division Bench that a Class-IV employee, de hors as to when he or she was engaged, i.e. before 10.05.2001 or after 10.05.2001, has a right to continue to serve till he/she attains the age of 60 years, this writ petition is allowed and the act of the respondent of intending to superannuate the petitioner at the age of 58 years is held to be bad and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue to serve till last day of the month in which she will attain the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.