Tarsem Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Sabina, J

Petitioner had filed original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, seeking following reliefs:-

“(a) That the impugned order dated 28.09.2017, Annexure A-13, issued by the respondent No.2, ordering the retirement of applicant from retrospective date i.e. 29.04.2017 (30.04.2017) being Sunday) after having allowed the applicant to work upto the age of 58 years and 5 months, may kindly be ordered to be quashed and further directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to implement its earlier decision, in the case of the applicant issued vide order dated 29.04.2017, Annexure A-11, vide which order, the applicant was allowed to work upto the age of 60 years in view of Govt. instructions contained therein and all consequential benefits be allowed to be granted in favour of the applicant in the interest of justice.

(b) That the respondents may kindly be restrained from retiring the applicant at the age of 58 years and 5 months, instead of 60 years, in the facts and circumstances explained in the body of original application, as the applicant who was recruited on 14.05.1992/20.05.1992was entitled for regularization in the same manner as was introduced and benefits was extended to similar situated employees, vide Annexure A-4, which treatment applied in the case of the applicant would have entitled the applicant to retire at the age of 60 years.”

After abolition of the Tribunal, the original application was transferred to this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by Full Bench decision of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matter, decided on 22.02.2022.

Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially engaged as a Peon on part time basis with effect from 20.05.1992. Services of the petitioner were brought on daily wage basis with effect from 01.03.2004. Petitioner was ordered to be regularized with effect from September, 2015. It is the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to continue in service to the age of 60 years. The impugned order, whereby the petitioner had been retired with effect from the date he had attained the age of 58 years on 29.04.2017, was liable to be set aside.

Operative part of the order dated 22.02.2022 reads as under:-

“There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.”

Case of the petitioner is covered by the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh’s case (supra). Petitioner had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10th May, 2001 and had been regularized after 10th May, 2001. Petitioner had retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018, vide impugned order dated 28th September, 2017, with retrospective date, i.e., with effect from 29.04.2017, on attaining the age of 58 years. In view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh’s case (supra), the petition is allowed and the impugned order 28.09.2017 (Annexure P-13) is set aside. Petitioner shall be deemed to have retired on attaining the age of 60 years. However, petitioner would not be entitled to receive any monetary benefits with effect from the date of the passing of the order till his deemed date of retirement (i.e., on attaining the age of 60 years). Petitioner would be entitled to notional fixation of his pay for the period in question for working out his payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.