Allowed¶23

Bali Ram v. State of Hp and Another

Superannuation – Class-IV employee

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Oct 2024CWP/5959/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Class-IV employee superannuation age 58 vs 60; Notification dated 21.02.2018 cut-off of 10.05.2001; Fundamental Rule-56 amendment; Article 14 arbitrariness; Satya Devi v. State of H.P., CWP No.2274 of 2021 (decided 28.05.2024); part-time/daily wage regularization; equal retirement age for all Class-IV Government servants; Part Time Water Carrier regularized 17.03.2017; CWP No.5959 of 2024; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Ajay Mohan Goel.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be allowed to continue in service till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years; pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of. ¶23

Bali Ram Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner to be allowed to continue in service till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years; pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Class-IV employee, could be superannuated at the age of 58 years instead of being entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The act of the respondents of superannuating the petitioner, a Class-IV employee, at the age of 58 years is not sustainable in law.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

In light of the Division Bench judgment in Satya Devi v. State of H.P., every Class-IV employee has a right to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years de hors the date of initial engagement; denying that right to the petitioner is unsustainable, and the reason that he was engaged after Notification dated 10.05.2001 does not hold the test of reasonableness.

¶22

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed; the superannuation of the petitioner at 58 years is held bad in law and the respondents are directed to allow him to continue till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Superannuation — Class-IV employee — age of retirement 58 vs 60 years 一 Notification dated 21.02.2018 confined the benefit of retirement at 60 years to incumbents engaged before 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001 — petitioner, a Part Time Water Carrier (joined 2002, regularized 17.03.2017 vide Annexure P-1), sought continuation in service till 60 years. Relying on the Division Bench decision in Satya Devi v. State of H.P., CWP No.2274 of 2021, decided 28.05.2024, which struck down the words 'appointed on part timer/daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001' in the Notification as failing the test of Article 14 and held that all Class-IV Government servants retire on the last day of the month in which they attain 60 years irrespective of the date of initial engagement or regularization, the Court held that superannuating the petitioner at 58 years was bad in law and that the plea of engagement after the 10.05.2001 amendment to Fundamental Rule-56 did not satisfy the test of reasonableness. Petition allowed; respondents directed to permit the petitioner to continue till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years.

¶1

2024:HHC:9876

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

	CWP No. 5959 of 2024 Decided on: 16.10.2024
Bali Ram Versus	… Petitioner
State of H.P. & another	… Respondents
Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay M Whether approved for repo	ohan Goel, Judge. rting?¹Yes
___________________________ For the petitioner : For the respondents :	_______________________ Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

¶4

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶5

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶6

following reliefs:-

¶7

“ (i) That in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove in this writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to continue till the age of 60.”

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that he joined the respondent-Department as a Part Time Water Carrier in the year 2002. His services were earlier brought on daily wage basis by the respondent-Department and thereafter his services were regularized vide Annexure P-1, dated 17.03.2017. His grievance in this Writ petition is that the Authorities were intending to superannuate the petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years, which act of the respondents as per the petitioner was bad as the petitioner being a Class-IV employee was entitled for continuation in service till the age

¶9

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

2024:HHC:9876

of 60 years.

The reply filed by the State to the Writ petition demonstrates that the stand of the Department therein is that because the petitioner was engaged and regularized after 10.05.2021, therefore, he is rightly be superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years, because in terms of the Notification dated 21.02.2018 which is on record as Annexure P-2 with the Writ petition, though an incumbent regularized on or after 10.05.2001 has a right to be superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years, but this right is accruable only to those who were in service as on 21.02.2018 and who stood engaged before 10.05.2001.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the respondents of superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years is not sustainable in law.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving the Department as a class-IV employee. Incidentally, before the issuance of Notification, dated 21.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), the incumbents who were engaged before 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, were also being superannuated on attaining age of 58 years. After coming into force of this Notification the incumbents who were appointed on part-time/daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001, were given the

¶16

¶17

2024:HHC:9876

¶18

benefit of superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years. The vires of this cut-off date was tested by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021, titled Satya Devi vs. State of H.P. & others, alongwith other connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024. In this judgment, Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that the distinction sought to be made vide Notification dated 21.02.2018 between Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and those engaged after 10.05.2001 does not stand any judicial scrutiny and touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and cut-off date of 10.05.2001 in the Notification was arbitrary. Hon’ble Division Bench thereafter went on to hold that there ought to be same age of superannuation prescribed for all Class-IV employees, i.e. 60 years. Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to strike down the words “appointed on part timer/ daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001” in the Notification dated 21.02.2018 and Hon’ble Division Bench declared 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.

¶19

Coming back to the facts of this case, in the backdrop of what has been discussed hereinabove, the stand primarily taken in the reply by the respondent-Department is that because the initial appointment of the petitioner on part-time basis was

¶20

¶21

2024:HHC:9876

¶22

after the amendment was carried out by the Government in Fundamental Rule-56 vide Notification dated 10.05.2001, therefore, the petitioner was rightly being superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years. As Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has been pleased to hold that every Class-IV employees de hors the fact as to what the date of initial engagement was as a right to be superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, the act of the respondents of denying the right to the petitioner to continue to serve till the age of 60 years is not sustainable in law. The reason being spelled out that because the petitioner was engaged after the issuance of Notification dated 10.05.2001, therefore, he has to retire at the age of 58 years does not holds the test of reasonableness more so in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Satya Devi versus State of H.P. (supra).

¶23

Accordingly, in view of the above observations, this Writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents of superannuating the petitioner at the age of 58 years is held to be bad in law and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue to serve till the last day of the month in which the petitioner attains the age of superannuation of 60 years. The stands petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

¶25

2024:HHC:9876

¶26

October 16, 2024 (Rishi)

¶27

Digitally signed by BHUPENDER KUMAR DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=04d8bcd7412dcb18b7b081df02fb3b89ecc4a0c8f8a66ab9 7285dc56e62d41fe, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2ccc91b5122501da0ce3678b0e2b7bd5fa9b09 937769da5501e1f4e7ad448bc5, CN=BHUPENDER KUMAR Reason: I am approving this document with my legally binding signatureLocation: Date: 2024-10-17 19:28:18

¶28

BHUPEND ER KUMAR

Bali Ram v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bali Ram v. State of Hp and Another

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

Kala Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Manju Sharma Vs Kushal Kumar Sharma

Chander Parkash Vs Sita Ram

Ramesh Chand Vs Hrtc and Another

Vidya Sagar Vs Hpsebl and Another

Meena Kumari and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another