ORDER : Petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier Class-IV worker at Government Primary School Bhanog. She joined as such on 19.09.1997. Her services were regularized by the respondents during the year 2012. Upon attaining the age of 58 years, the petitioner superannuated on 28.02.2013. By way of instant petition filed on 24.05.2013, she has raised following two grievances:- 1(a). In accordance with applicable instructions/rules/notifications, the petitioner should have been continued in service till she attained the age of 60 years. The action of respondents in retiring her at the age of 58 years on 28.02.2013 was illegal. Hence, she is entitled to all consequential benefits and arrears for the period of two years of service denied to her. 1(b). The year of petitioner’s birth was wrongly recorded in her service book as 1955. In fact, as per Panchyat record, the petitioner was born in the year 1956. The date of birth is required to be corrected in her service record. 2. Insofar as the second ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, the same is required to be rejected out rightly. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was unaware about the year of her birth entered in the official record as 1955, yet she has chosen to agitate this issue only after her superannuation from service. According to the respondents, date of birth was recorded in petitioner’s official record as per her school leaving certificate, which was supplied by her at the time of furnishing her joining report. Petitioner has not even filed any rejoinder. Taking all the relevant facts into consideration, the second grievance put-forth by the petitioner lacks merit and is turned down. 3. Insofar as the continuation of the petitioner in service till the age of 60 years is concerned, the controversy has been put at rest by a Full Bench decision of this Court on 22.02.2022 rendered in a bunch of writ petitions with lead case being CWP No.2711/2017, titled Baldev Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. wherein following conclusions were drawn:- “7. There is now no confusion regarding employees falling in para 6(ii)(a) above. These employees can continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. However, an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). State of H.P. & Ors. wherein following conclusions were drawn:- “7. There is now no confusion regarding employees falling in para 6(ii)(a) above. These employees can continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. However, an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). The employees falling in above para 6(ii)(b) and 6(ii)(c) for all practical purposes belong to the same category and are similarly situated. Both sets of employees were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. Such of the employees engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, if were in service on 21.02.2018, will continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. On the other hand, such of the employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, but have retired before the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018, will not get the benefit of notification dated 21.02.2018. This to our mind is wholly discriminatory. Similarly situated employees are being treated differently. The employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, constitute one homogenous class. Differential treatment to the employees falling in same homogenous class is impermissible. In fact, amendment carried out in F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 suggests that the date of regularization will have no impact upon the superannuation age. Date of engagement is the determinative factor. If a daily wager is engaged prior to 10.05.2021, then he is entitled to serve till 60 years of age irrespective of date of his regularization. This was held so in Bar Chand’s case, decided on 21.10.2010. However, at the time of decision in Bar Chand’s case, the amendment dated 21.02.2018 had not been carried out in F.R. 56(e). Therefore, though later judgment in Chuni Lal’s case dated 22.11.2011, holding the decision in Bar Chand’s case as per incuriam cannot be faulted as it was based upon strict interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as amended by the State at that time. However, in view of subsequent amendment of F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 in the interregnum, situation has undergone further change. Reference made to the larger Bench is not only to decide about the inconsistency in the decisions referred therein, but also to put at rest related issues coming or likely to arise before different benches. However, in view of subsequent amendment of F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 in the interregnum, situation has undergone further change. Reference made to the larger Bench is not only to decide about the inconsistency in the decisions referred therein, but also to put at rest related issues coming or likely to arise before different benches. Therefore, we hold that:- (i). There is an apparent inconsistency or conflict between the decisions referred to in the reference order dated 28.12.2019, which lies in a very narrow compass, as noticed in para 6(i) above. In Chuni Lal’s case, the decision rendered in Bar Chand’s case was held to be per incuriam. The decision in Chuni Lal’s case was based upon interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as it existed in the State at that time. But the judgment delivered in Tara Chand’s case did not notice the decision in Chuni Lal’s case. The judgment in Gian Singh’s case in respect of continuation in service was based upon the verdict in Tara Chand’s case. In both these judgments, learned Single Judges did not notice the judgment delivered in Chuni Lal’s case. In Letters patent appeal, the Division Bench while affirming the judgment passed by the ld. Single Judge in Gian Singh’s case though did not notice the judgment rendered in Chuni Lal’s case however the amendment dated 10.5.2001 reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years was held to be not applicable to the writ petitioner, who was held entitled for regularisation prior to 10.5.2001. (ii). Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of a class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the decisive factor. 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 age upto 58 years will apply. (iii). There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. 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 age upto 58 years will apply. (iii). 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. 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 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. Reference is accordingly answered. The writ petitions be now placed appropriately before the respective Benches.” The grievance raised by the petitioner in respect of her continuation in service till the date of 60 years is to be decided by the respondents in light of the aforesaid decision. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of grievance raised by the petitioner at serial 1(a) of the present judgment, the competent authority/respondent is directed to decide this issue in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order by passing a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.