Mangat Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

2024:HHC:8720

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

*CWP No.10157 of 2024* *Decided on: 13*^thSeptember, 2024
__________________________________________________________ Mangat Ram …Petitioner Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …Respondents
*Coram*
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approvedfor reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶4

Ranjan Sharma Judge (Oral)

¶5

Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶6

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings.

¶7

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2024:HHC:8720

¶9

- 2 -

¶10

3. The petitioner, Mangat Ram, a Class-IV employee, having retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2023, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):-

¶11

“I. That the impugned actions of respondent department in retiring petitioner at the age of 58 years which is contrary to the law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court in Satya Devi vs. State of HP & Ors. (CWP No.2274 of 2021) may be held wrong, illegal and bad in law.

¶12

II. That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till attainment the age of 60 years with all consequential benefits, including arrears, back wages and Seniority from due date.”

¶13

4. Factual matrix is that the petitioner was

¶14

initially appointed as Part Time Peon in Education Department on 04.09.2002. As per the then existing norms, services of the petitioner were converted from Part Time to Daily Wager as Water Carrier-CumPeon on 26.09.2012 and the petitioner was thereafter regularized as Class-IV [Peon-cum-Chowkidar] on 22.03.2017. The petitioner, being a regular Class-IV employee retired from service on attaining the age of

¶15

2024:HHC:8720

¶16

- 3 -

¶17

superannuation of 58 years on 31.03.2023 [Annexure P- 1], under the orders issued by Principal, Shaheed Manohar Lal GSSS Kuthar Beet, District Una (HP).

¶18

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that State Government had issued a Notification dated 21.02.2018 restricting the benefit of continuity in service upto the age of 60 years only in case of those employees, who were appointed or engaged on part time or daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and were regularized thereafter whereas those employees who were appointed or were engaged on part time or daily wages basis on or after 10.05.2001 were made to superannuate on attaining the age 58 years.

¶19

6. The issue as to whether the part time or daily wage employees appointed or engaged on or after

¶20

10.05.2001 can be singled out by denying them the right of continuity in service till age of 60 years on same analogy as extended to those who were appointed or were engaged on part time or daily wage

¶21

2024:HHC:8720

¶22

- 4 -

¶23

basis before 10.05.2001 , in terms of the Notification dated 21.02.2018 [Annexure P-2] stands adjudicated by the Principal Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No.2274 of 2021 along with connected matters, titled as Satya Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others on 28.05.2024 [Annexure P-3]; mandating that the classification carved out on the basis of cut-off date i.e. 10.05.2001 by permitting the part time or daily wage employer who were appointed or engaged prior 10.05.2001 vis-à-vis the employees who were engaged or appointed after 10.05.2001 was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, by declaring the cutoff date i.e. 10.05.2001 and by stricking down the offending words, appearing in Notification dated 21.02.2018, [Annexure P-2] as arbitrary, in the following

¶24

terms:-

¶25

As stated above, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the notification dt.21.2.2018. The State has not sought to indicate

¶26

2024:HHC:8720

¶27

- 5 -

¶28

the differentia or the nexus between differentia of those engaged before 10.05.2001 and the sought to be achieved. It has not sought to justify that differentia has rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the notification.

¶29

For the aforesaid reasons, we disagree with the contention of the respondents that categorizing of persons engaged on different dates on the basis of applicability of Rules prevailing at the time of their engagement qua their age of superannuation does not amount to arbitrariness, discrimination or unfairness in any manner The comparison made by the respondent with concepts of fixation of seniority and promotion that they are fixed on date of appointment is wholly inappropriate. We also disagree with the plea of respondents that persons engaged on different dates are not alike for the purpose of service benefits.

¶30

We agree with the contentions of petitioners that the object sought to be achieved by enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years is to enable lowly paid Class-IV employees to enjoy benefit of services for longer duration, but imposition of the cut-off date frustrates this object .

¶31

Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that distinction sought to be made in the impugned notification dt.21.2.2018 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, and the cutoff date of 10.5.2001 in the notification dt.21.2.2018, is arbitrary.

¶32

We therefore hold that that there ought to be same age of superannuation prescribed for all class -IV employees i.e 60 years.

¶33

Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons we strike down the words “appointed on part time/daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001 and regularized on or

¶34

2024:HHC:8720

¶35

- 6 -

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

7. This Court informed that the judgment in

¶39

Satya Devi’s case also stands implemented by State Authorities i.e. Directorate of Higher Education, as per communication dated 03.09.2024, [Annexure P-5].

¶40

8. Another Division Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No.7263 of 2020 , titled as Sahab Dei versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others , decided on

¶41

2024:HHC:8720

¶42

- 7 -

¶43

17.6.2024, has granted benefit of continuity upto the age of 60 years to petitioner(s) therein, irrespective of date of engagement or appointment either on part

¶44

time or on daily wages, in the following terms:-

¶45

“7. Being similar petition with identical issue involved herein, present case is also squarely covered by the judgment dated 28.5.2024, passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and connected matters, and, therefore, and accordingly, the said judgment shall be applicable in the present case mutatis mutandis for all intends and purposes.

¶46

Accordingly, petition is allowed and disposed of with observation that relief shall be extended to the petitioner herein herein terms of para 119 of the judgment in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, as referred to herein above within six weeks.”

¶47

9. Notably, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.9828 of 2024 , titled Magi Devi versus State of H.P. & Ors , decided on 11.09.2024 has also quashed the impugned retirement orders, after relying on the judgment in case of Satya Devi (supra) in the following terms:-

¶48

It is stated by the learned counsel on both sides that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the judgment delivered on 28.05.2024 in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 (Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and others) and batch of cases.

¶49

2024:HHC:8720

¶50

- 8 -

¶51

Accordingly, order dated 30.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service till she attains the age of 60 years. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶52

10. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs that the judgment passed by Principal Division Bench in case of Satya Devi (supra) has been assailed before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.20496 of 2024 , but no interim orders have been passed therein.

¶53

Learned State Counsel does not dispute the above factual and legal matrix, as discussed hereinabove.

¶54

11. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law, as referred to above; the Impugned Order superannuating the petitioner, on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.03.2023, as is borne out from [Annexure P-1], is quashed as set aside. Consequently, the Respondents

¶55

2024:HHC:8720

¶56

- 9 -

¶57

are also directed to reinstate the petitioner within two weeks from today so as to enable him to continue till the age of superannuation of 60 years i.e. 31.03.2025;

¶58

with further directions to release all admissible consequential benefits within four weeks thereafter.

¶59

12. It is clarified that since the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 20496 of 2024, filed by the State Authorities is pending, therefore, the reinstatement and admissible benefits, if any, shall abide by the orders/directions to be passed in the aforesaid SLP, as referred to above.

¶60

In aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition, as well as, all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶61

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶62

September 13, 2024 (himani)

Mangat Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangat Ram v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Bhardwaj Vs State of Hp

Sohan Lal Vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma

Soma Devi(deleted) sharda devi and Ors. Vs Promod Kumar

General Manager Northern Railway Vs Subhash Chand

Partap Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nimmo Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others