The Bench pronounced order here on February 22 in connection with two petitions and answered the Reference accordingly and placed the writ petitions appropriately before the respective Benches. The first petition ( CWP No.2711 of 2017) was between Baldev, son of Lehnu Ram of Dhargla, Tehsil Salooni Chamba of Himachal Pradesh, who retired as Mali in the office of divisional forest officer, Churah in Chamba and state of Himachal Pradesh and three respondents. The second petition (CWPOA No.2208 of 2020) was between Nardev Singh, son of Geeta Ram, village Sakol, Bagthan in Sirmaur district, serving as a peon on regular basis in Rajgarh forest division, and state of Himachal Pradesh.
The Bench ruled that if the date of engagement or 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 age up to 58 years will apply, the Bench ruled. The petition was referred to the Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement of the subject vide order dated 28.12.2019.
A Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, has ruled in an order passed on a petition filed by one Baldev that there cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class IV employees belonging to one homogenous class.
Therefore, the retirement date of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years, the Bench ordered.
The bench ruled that 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 or salary for period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.
Earlier, a Division Bench of this High Court had observed an apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by different Benches of this High Court regarding interpretation of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules (F.R.) with respect to notification dated 10.05.2001, amending this Fundamental Rule in Himachal Pradesh as well as circular dated 22.02.2010 clarifying the amendment and how it can be applied in these cases.
