Casual paid labourers have no right to continue beyond age 60 absent material proof; judicial notice of 60 as superannuation age in central employment and physical fitness needs upheld termination.

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