Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA, J.
The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Satpal - Respondent
CMP (M) No.89 of 2025 In LPA No.78 of 2025
Decided on : 04-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Age of superannuation - The court upheld the decision to allow the respondent-employee to continue in service until the age of 60 years, referencing the precedent set in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 - The distinction based on the date of engagement was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 6, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Consent Judgment - The court emphasized that a consent judgment cannot be challenged unless consent is disputed or shown to be erroneous. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that the state cannot impose differential treatment among employees based on arbitrary criteria, reaffirming the principle of equality before the law. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the judgment allowing the respondent-employee to continue in service until the age of 60, arguing that the respondent's regularization occurred after a cut-off date that limited retirement age to 58.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appellants' arguments and upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing the need for uniformity in retirement age for all Class-IV employees.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the cut-off date for retirement age and the applicability of the consent judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the differentiation based on the date of engagement was arbitrary and violated the principle of equality, thus all Class-IV employees should retire at 60.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per Ranjan Sharma, J.
CMP [M] No.89 of 2025
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned. In aforesaid terms, the application stands disposed of.
LPA No.78 of 2025
2. Appellants-State of Himachal Pradesh has come up before this Court, assailing the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 9317 of 2024, titled as Satpal versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 05.09.2024[referred to as Impugned Judgment], wherein, the claim of Respondent-Employee herein, {being the writ petitioner}, was accepted for continuation in service upto the age of 60 years in terms of the mandate of the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024, with directions to Appellants-State Authorities to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years [i.e. upto 30.9.2026].
CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 IN INSTANT APPEAL:
3. Appellants-State Authorities have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2024, contending that firstly, the Learned Single Judge had not taken into account the judgment in case of Geeta Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors [CWP No. 2648 of 2024], decided on 20.05.2024 [Annexure A-II], annexed with instant appeal ; and secondly, that the respondent-employee was engaged [as Jal Rakshak in Jal Shakti Vibhag through PRI on 18.11.2006 and he was inducted as Pump Attendant on contract on 29.11.2019 and was thereafter regularized on 26.04.2022] and once this regularization was after 10.05.2001 therefore, the Respondent-Employee could only serve upto the age of 58 years; thirdly, the Notification dated 10.05.2001 was not even challenged by respondent-employee and lastly, the implementation of the Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2024 will lead to multiplicity of litigation and will unsettle the settled position.
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 05.09.2024:
4. Before adverting to the contentions of Learned State Counsel in the instant appeal, it is necessary to have a recap of Para-5 of Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge, which reads as under:-
“5. 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.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service till he attains the age of 60 years.
CONSENT JUDGEMENT UNASSAILABLE IN LPA:
5. Para-5 of the Impugned Judgment passed by Learned Single Judge reveals that the parties before the writ Court had agreed in principle that the matter in issue is covered by the judgment in CWP No. 2274 of 2021 [Satya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters, decided on 28.05.2024].
Perusal of writ records reveals that the Respondent-Employee [Satpal], filed a writ petition [CWP No 9317 of 2024] on 31.08.2024 and this petition was listed before Learned Single Judge on 05.09.2024, on which date, the Learned Counsel(s) stated/admitted that the case was covered by the judgment in the case of Satya Devi (supra) and therefore, the petition filed by Respondent-Employee was decided by Learned Single Judge on 05.09.2024 in view of the mandate of law, in the case of Satya Devi, as referred to above. Moreover, the judgement passed with consent of parties, through respective counsels, cannot be permitted to be assailed in instant appeal by the State Authorities. Further in case, the State Authorities were of the view that no consent was given or such consent was erroneously extended by the State Counsel [as recorded in Pa
The court affirmed that all Class-IV employees must retire at 60 years, rejecting arbitrary distinctions based on engagement dates as discriminatory under Article 14.
Class IV servants engaged part-time/daily wages prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after retire at 60 years based on engagement date; retrospective notional benefits for pension to those retired ear....
Point of Law : 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 a....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
