Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RANJAN SHARMA
Hazari Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks quashing retirement at 58; extension to 60. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. reply by elementary education; no jurisdiction over matter. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. pre-2001 engagement determines 60-year superannuation age. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petitioner to represent to higher education director. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner, Hazari Lal, had initially filed an Original Application No.3675 of 2017 before Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of Tribunal, the matter stands transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.2527 of 2020, seeking the following relief:-
“7(i) That the impugned relieving order dated 31.1.2017, Annexure A-5 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the Applicant may very kindly be ordered to be reinstated in service alongwith seniority and continuity and all other consequential benefits, in the interest of justice.”
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner upon due selection was appointed as a Part-time Water Carrier on 18.01.1995 [Annexure A-1/T] in GSSS Kujabalh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner continued to serve as a Part-Time Water Carrier since January 1995 and he was upgraded as Whole-Time Co
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 : Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of s....
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....
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.
The date of engagement is the decisive factor for determining the age of continuing in service, as per the interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56(e) discussed in the Full Bench judgment in the case of....
Employees of autonomous bodies like the DRDA cannot claim parity with state government employees regarding retirement benefits unless explicitly provided by law or policy, and changes in retirement a....
The date of engagement is the decisive factor for determining the retirement age of a daily wage worker, and similarly situated employees should not face discrimination.
Fixed age of retirement established at the time of appointment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments operate prospectively.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility and entitlement to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, based on the petitioner's service history, including regular and de....
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
