ORDER :

Mohammad Rafiq, J.

A Division Bench of this Court observed ‘apparent conflict’ in the decisions rendered by different Benches of this Court regarding interpretation of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules (in short ‘F.R.’) vis-à-vis notification dated 10.05.2001 amending this Fundamental Rule in the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as circular dated 22.02.2010 clarifying the amendment and its applicability. For authoritative pronouncement on the subject, the matter has been referred to the Larger Bench vide following order dated 28.12.2019:

“Apparently there appears to be a conflict in the decisions rendered by different Benches of this Court with regard to the interpretation of FR 56.

2. In LPA No. 196 of 2010, titled Bar Chand vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 21.10.2010, it was observed that all those who had been appointed even if on daily waged service prior to 10.05.2001, would be entitled to continue upto the age of 60 years.

3. However, the aforesaid judgment has later on been distinguished, as one rendered per incuriam, since the position under the Rules was not considered in that case and this was so stated clearly by a Division Bench (Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuri