IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No: 240 of 2025 Decided on: 19.05.2025 _________________________________________________P_________

H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Limited and another.

H.... Appellants Versus Jagdish Ram and another ...Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

1Whether approved for repotrting? Yes.

For the appellants: Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondent No.2.

R anjan Sharma, Judge Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation, being the appellant, has come up before this Court, in instant Appeal, assailing the Judgement dated 24.09.2024 [hereinafter referred to as Impugned Judgement] passed by Learned Single Judge, in CWP No. 4793 of 2024, In re: Jagdish Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein, communication dated 11.1.2024

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

[Annexure P-1 in writ file] was quashed and set- aside; and the retirement of the Respondent-writ petitioner Jagdish Ram at the age of 5P8 years was held to be bad ; with further directions to the appellants to allow the Respondent to serve till the age of 60 years, upto 31.05.2026, with all consequential benefits including wages etc.

FACTUAL MATRI X BEFORE WRIT COURT

2. In CWP No 4793 of 2024, Respondent -writ petitioner, namely Jagdish Ram has set up a case, othat he was engaged on daily wage basCis as an unskilled worker on 1.11.1990 in Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur and he was regularized as an ‘unskilled worker’ against a temporary post on 25.11.2004 [Annexure R-2 in writ file] and he joined as such on 27.11.2004. He was promoted on the post of Semi-Skilled Employee, on 17.08.2009 [Annexure P-3] in Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur. On the other hand, the appellant-corporation had another unit i.e. Fiber Board Factory at Baijnath, in which, besides other employees, one Shri Vipan Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar-II, were engaged as unskilled workers, on daily wage basis on 3.6.1987 and on 27.7.1987. They were regularized as “Punskilled worker” against the temporary posts on 12.02.1998 and on 1.12.2000 [Annexure R-1, colly in writ file]. The Fiber Board Factory was closed and after its closure, these employees were redeployed in Rosin and Turpentine Factory at Bilaspur. These two incumbents rwere promoted as Semi-Skilled Employees on 17.8.2009 {Class-IV} along-with the Respondent-writ petitioner in Rosin and Turpentine Factory. Thereafter, the appellant-corporation issued C ommon Seniority List of factory workers working in Rosin and Turpentine Factory Bilaspur on 15.10.2008 [Annexure P-2 writ file], and another H common Seniority List of Semi-skilled Employees on 17.5.2017 [Annexure P-3 in the writ file] placing the redeployed employees, including Vipan and Sanjeev Kumar and respondent-writ petitioner in the said common list.

It is further averred that once all these Semi-Skilled Workers [Class-IV], formed part of one cadre, with common seniority, same nomenclature, same job profile and functions, were in same pay scale, then, the Appellant-CoPrporation could not retire the Respondent-writ petitioner at the age of 58 years vide communication dated 11.1.2024 [Annexure P-1 in the writ file] w.e.f. 31.05.2024, whereas, other two incumbents, Vipan Kumar and Sanjeev Ku mar-II, {who were erstwhile employees of Fiberr Board Factory and upon its closure were deployed in Rosin and Turpentine Factory Bilaspur} were allowed to serve till the age of 60 years on 30.09.2024 and 31.07.2024, re spectively. It is averred that appellant corporation could not apply/invoke two different age(s) of retirement between one homogenous class of Class-IV H Employees ;and applying different age of retirement within the same unit {i.e. Rosin and Turpentine Factory Bilaspur} and for same set of Class-IV Em