Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 948 (HP)

Bhola Nand v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2013-11-12

RAJIV SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. PETITIONER has prayed mainly for the following relief:- "i. That Annexure P-3 may be quashed and the respondents may be ordered to continue the petitioner upto the age of 60 years." 2. ANNEXURE P-3 is the information supplied to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, disclosing that he stands retired w.e.f. 31.8.2013. It is the petitioner's case that he ought to have been retired at the age of 60 instead of 58 years, as is so done by the respondents/authorities. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? We are of the considered view that respondents in their response have justified the petitioner's retirement at the age of 58 years. 3. THE averments made in Paras-3&4 of the reply, reads as under:- "3&4 That in reply to these para it is submitted that the Govt. of HP vide notification dated 10.5.2001 Annexure P-2 has notified that the workman appointed on or after the date of publication of the notification dated 10.5.2001 in Raj patra HP shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last date of the months in which he attains the age of 58 years. Since the petitioner was given the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2002 and was appointed on 30.8.2003 vide office order No.2-8/79 Udyan-I, which clearly shows that the petitioner have been appointed after the date of issuance of notification dated 10.5.2001 Annexure P-2. Hence the petitioner has to retire from the Govt. service on the attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner is misguiding this Hon'ble court by contesting that he has been granted the work charge status w.e.f. 1.1.2001 in view of making his claim for retirement age of 60. Infact the petitioner has been appointed in the Govt. service on 30.8.2003 i.e. after the issuance of the Govt. notification dated 10.5.2001 and as such the petitioner is to be retired from Govt. service on attaining the age of superannuation age of 58 years. Hence the CWP deserves to be dismissed." 4. UNDISPUTEDLY, petitioner was regularized after issuance of notification dated 10.5.2001, as such, petitioner has been rightly retired at the age of 58 years. Benefit of two more years is accorded only to such of those persons who stood regularized prior to 10.5.2001, which notification is not subject mater of challenge. Hence the CWP deserves to be dismissed." 4. UNDISPUTEDLY, petitioner was regularized after issuance of notification dated 10.5.2001, as such, petitioner has been rightly retired at the age of 58 years. Benefit of two more years is accorded only to such of those persons who stood regularized prior to 10.5.2001, which notification is not subject mater of challenge. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands dismissed, so also, the pending application(s), if any.