Allowed

Laxmi Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jul 2023CWPOA/4926/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner, a Class-IV daily wage employee regularized after 10.05.2001 and retired at age 58, to continue in service till age 60 based on a Full Bench decision. The court granted consequential benefits but clarified entitlement was limited to notional pay for pension calculation.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to allow petitioner to continue till age 60 (30.08.2019) and grant consequential benefits via notional pay fixation for pension.

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWPOA No. 4926 of 2020

¶3

Decided on: 07.07.2023

¶4

Laxmi Devi		.…Petitioner.
	Versus
State of H.P. and Ors.		…Respondents.
*Coram*

¶5

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the petitioner	: Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondents	: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
	General with Mr.
	Ramakant Sharma, Ms.
	Sharmila Patial, Additional
	Advocate Generals, Mr.
	Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy
	Advocate General and Mr.
	Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer.

¶8

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶9

It is not in dispute that the petitioner

¶10

was engaged on daily wages in the year 1997 and thereafter his services were regularized in the year

¶11

Respondents on 21.02.2018 issued notification

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

amending rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules in the following terms:-

¶15

“In rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules, after the second proviso to clause€, the following third proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

¶16

“Provided further that a Class-IV Government Servant appointed on parttime/daily wages basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001 shall retie from service on the afternoon of the lst day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.”

¶17

According to the petitioner, he is entitled

¶18

to continue after the age of 60 years in terms of notification dated 21.02.2018 and has been wrongly

¶19

retired on attaining the age of 58 years, therefore, filed the instant petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

¶20

“i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to allow the applicant to continue till the age of 60 years, i.e. 30.08.2019, with all consequential benefits.

¶21

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give the arrears of two years, i.e. with effect from 30.08.2017 to 30.08.2019, with all consequential benefits to the applicant.

¶22

¶23

The issue in question is no longer

¶24

res-integra and squarely covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Baldev Vs. State of

¶25

Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (2022) 1 Shimla Law Cases 233. It shall be apt to reproduce para 7.3 of the judgment, which reads as under:-

¶26

“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.”

¶27

¶28

It would be noticed that the petitioner was

¶29

engaged on daily wages prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001, therefore, he was entitled to continue in service after the age of his retirement. Since, this petition was filed by the petitioner after her retirement, as such she would not be entitled to actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of actual retirement till deemed date of retirement. However, she would be entitled to notional fixation of pay for the period in question for the purpose of working out pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.

¶30

The instant petition is allowed in the

¶31

aforesaid terms.

¶32

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶33

any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶34

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶35

7^th July, 2023 (sushma)

¶36

Laxmi Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Devi v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Chauhan Vs State of Hp and Others

Union of India Vs Bhawani Dutt Sharma and Others

Amar Nath Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hpseb and Another Vs Tilak Raj and Others

Govind Singh Vs State of Hp

Sunil Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Others