Back
2026 Supreme(HP) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Nokh Ram and others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
CWP No. 2149 of 2022 a/w CWP No.2292 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Casual Employment
Headnote
(B) Employment policies - Casual paid labourers employed on daily or monthly rates for maximum six months - Policy of construction workers welfare board prohibits engagement of workmen above age of 60 years - No infirmity in non-engagement beyond 60. (Paras 4, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were casual paid labourers working under certain units whose services were terminated verbally on attaining age of 60 years. They claimed no maximum age limit for retirement and sought re-engagement till medically unfit.
Findings of Court:
No perversity in dispensing services on attaining 60 years; petitioners not regular employees but casual labourers.
Issues: Whether casual paid labourers have right to continue beyond 60 years absent fixed retirement age or till medically unfit; validity of termination without notice.
Ratio Decidendi: Casual paid labourers lack vested right to employment beyond 60 years without supporting material; court takes judicial notice of 60 as standard superannuation age and considers physical demands of work.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
For the Petitioner:Ms. Saroj, Advocate, vice Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. casual laborers terminated upon reaching age 60. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. dispute over age limit rights for casual paid laborers. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. no vested right for casual laborers beyond superannuation age 60. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
As the common issues of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. The petitioners before this Court are Casual Paid Labourers, who were working under 396 RMPL (GREF) (Dett Basantpur and others) under the jurisdiction of 68 RCC (GREF) as per the following details:-
“a) Petitioner No. 1.Shri Nokh Ram S/O Shri Brestu, age about 61 years, R/o Village - Hiun, PO: Reyog, Tehsil-Sunni, Distt Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 28.01.2008, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 22.07.2008 for 179 days only,
(b) Petitioner No. 2.Shri Narain Dass S/O Shri Jinu, age about 65 years. R/o Village Tarar, PO Basantpur Tehsil-Sunni, Distt - Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1970, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 02.02.2007 for 179 days only,
(c) Petitioner No. 3.Shri Bachu Lal S/O Shri Chet Ram, age about 62 years, R/o Village Mandaylu, PO Basantpur, Tehsil-Sunni, Distt - Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1979, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 02.02.2007 for 179 days only,
(d) Petitioner No. 4.ShriBhupender Singh S/O Shri Puran Dass, age about 61 years, R/o Village -Dumehar, PO Kandarghat, Tehsil- Sunni, Distt Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1985, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 02.02.2007 for 179 days only,
(e) Petitioner No. 5. Shri Bhagat Ram S/O Sh. Hira, age DCT 202 about 61 years, R/o Village Dumehar PO Kandarghat, to Registrar Tehsil- Sunni, Distt Shimla(HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1985, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 14.06.2014 for 179 days only.”
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that on attaining the age of 60 years, their services stood terminated by the respondents verbally without any notice etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the light of the fact that there is no retirement age or superannuation age as far as Casual Paid Labour is concerned, the act of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years is not justifiable in the eyes of law and they should have been allowed to serve the Department till they were medically fit.
4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that Casual Paid Labourers can be employed on daily or monthly rates of pay for a maximum period of six months in terms of Annexure-F appended with the reply, but, it is not as if the Casual Paid Labourers have a right to continue beyond the age of 60 years also. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India has taken the Court through the reply filed by the respondents as well as documents appended therewith including Annexure-D and submitted that it is evident from Annexure-D that even in terms of the policy of the Himachal Pradesh Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board, no workman can be engaged, who is less than the age of 18 or above the age of 60 years. Learned Senior Panel Counsel thus submitted that there is no infirmity committed by the authorities in dispensing with the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years, because, the contention of the petitioner that they can be allowed to be continued even after the age of 60 years is not substantiated from any contemporaneous record or documents on record.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well documents appended therewith.
6. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with on attaining the age of 60 years. A perusal of the prayer clause of the writ pe
