IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of Class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 to retire at the age of 60 years and the emphasis on notional fixation of pay for pension calculation.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Chitranjan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the order(s) intended to be passed hereinafter.

3. The petitioner a Class-IV employee in the Higher Education Department, has filed the instant writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:-

i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count service as qualifying service of petitioner towards pension with effect from 26.5.2006 whereby granted whole time status followed by regularization without interruption and consequently she may be held entitled to pensionary benefits under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, with all consequential benefits;

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to

extend the benefit of Apex Court judgment in Balo Devi vs. State of HP, reported in Latest HLJ 2022 (Vol-II) (HP) 817 and judgment dated 22.2.2022 in CWP No.2711/2021 titled as Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. Consequently the petitioner may be held entitled for deemed retirement upto the age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits;”

4. At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he confines his prayer only qua the relief in CWP No.2711 of 2021, titled as Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided on 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court, in these proceedings. He further submits that he may be granted liberty to claim the relief based on Sunder Singh and Balo Devi, in case, the same is admissible at any subsequent point of time hereinafter.

5. Case of the petitioner is that the she was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier on 19.08.1997. She was granted Whole Time Status on 22.5.2006, Annexure P-2. On 8.9.2007, Annexure P-3, the respondents regularized the petitioner and she joined as such on 19.9.2007, and the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.06.2015.

6. In the background of the above facts, Mr. Parkash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Water Carrier under State Government on 07.08.1997 then, the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner as Class-IV Peon, at the age of 58 years on 30.06.2015 i.e. contrary to Office Memorandum issued under FR 56(e) as well as Full Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 22.02.2022.

7. The learned counsel submits that the issue as to whether an incumbent, who was engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and was regularized on or after 10.05.2001 is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years, as per Office Memorandum dated 11.05.2001, the amendments notified on 28.12.2019 and on 21/22-02-2018 under Fundamental Rule 56(e), stands adjudicated by the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. decided on 22.02.2022, wherein it has been held in Paras 7(ii) & (iii) as under:-

“(ii). Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of a class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply.

(iii). There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to