Allowed¶22

Bishan Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2024CWP/6121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Superannuation age 60 vs 58 years; Class-IV employee; daily wager engaged after cut-off date 10.05.2001; notification dated 21.02.2018; reliance on Satya Devi v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 2274 of 2021, Div. Bench, decided 28.05.2024); writ petition allowed with direction to serve till 60 years; petitioner Bishan Singh; respondents State of Himachal Pradesh; Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla; CWP No. 6121 of 2024; decided 03.07.2024; Judge Ajay Mohan Goel.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be allowed to serve the Department till the last day of the month in which he will attain the age of superannuation of 60 years; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ¶22

Bishan Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Class-IV employee whose initial engagement post-dates 10.05.2001, is to be superannuated at the age of 58 years or is entitled to serve up to the age of 60 years.

¶19

Court's answer

As settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (Satya Devi), even Class-IV employees engaged post 10.05.2001, like the petitioner, have a right to continue to serve the Government till the age of 60 years; accordingly the petitioner shall be allowed to serve the Department till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (single Judge, Ajay Mohan Goel, J., oral judgment dated 03.07.2024), CWP No. 6121 of 2024, Bishan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others — Petitioner, a Class-IV employee (appointed part-time Water Carrier on 17.05.2002, made daily wager on 01.09.2010, regularised as Peon on 01.09.2022), apprehended retirement at 58 years because his daily-wage engagement post-dated 10.05.2001, the cut-off fixed under notification dated 21.02.2018 for the 60-year superannuation age for Class IV employees. Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Satya Devi v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 2274 of 2021, decided 28.05.2024) that all Class-IV employees, whether engaged prior to or after 10.05.2001, are entitled to the same age of superannuation of 60 years and the Government's distinction between them does not hold judicial scrutiny, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner be permitted to serve the Department till the last day of the month in which he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years; pending miscellaneous application(s) stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2024:HHC:4363

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 6121 of 2024 Decided on 03^rd July, 2024

¶4

Bishan Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶5

…Petitioner Versus …Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

¶8

1Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia and Gambhir Singh, Advocates.

¶10

For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional

¶11

Advocate General.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶13

With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a part time Water Carrier on 17.05.2002. He was granted the status of a daily wager on 01.09.2010. His services were thereafter regularized on 01.09.2022 as Peon. As per the petitioner, he has a right to continue to serve the Government as a Class-IV employee till the age of 60 years but the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may retire him on attaining the age of 58 years for the reason that his appointment on daily wage basis is after

¶15

¶16

10.05.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to permit him to serve the Government as Class-IV employee till he attains the age of 60 years.

¶17

In terms of the reply filed to the writ petition, the stand of the State is that the petitioner was appointed after 10.05.2001 and in terms of the contents of notification dated 21.02.2018, as only those Class IV employees have been given the right to superannuate at the age of 60 years who have been engaged prior to 10.05.2001, therefore, this petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed accordingly.

¶18

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶19

The moot issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who happens to be a Class-IV employee, is to be superannuated at the age of 60 years of 58 years in view of the fact that his initial date of engagement is relatable to a date post 10.05.2001. Incidentally, this issue is now no more res integra and 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 held that whether a Class IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 or after that date, all are

¶20

¶21

entitled for same age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years and the distinction sought to be made by the Government between Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and after that date, does not hold judicial scrutiny.

¶22

Therefore, as it now stands settled by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that even Class-IV employees like the petitioner, who has been engaged post 10.05.2001, has a right to continue to serve the Government till the age of 60 years, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall be allowed to serve the Department till the last day of the month in which he will attain the age of superannuation of 60 years. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶24

July 03, 2024 (Vinod)

Bishan Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishan Singh v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Prem Singh Vs Dalip Singh and Others

Unnati Goyal Vs State of Hp and Another

Sukh Ram Vs the State of Hp and Others

Arvind Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Tilak Raj Vs the State of Hp and Another