ISHWAR DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) to (iii):

(2.) IN reply, the Respondents have taken the following stand vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions: That the present original application is not maintainable in the eyes of law, hence the same is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the Govt. of H.P. vide its notification from the office of Finance Commissioner -cum -Secretary (Finance) No. FIN(C)A(3)/98 dated 10.5.2001 has notified the age of superannuation from sixty years to fifty eight years for the employees of Class -IV. It is further submitted that this notification is made applicable to the Class -IV employees who are appointed on or after the publication of the aforesaid notification in the Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh. But it is further stated that the appointment of the applicant as work charged beldar was made by the office of Executive Engineer vide its Office Order No. PW -SKT -WCE -7/03 -11304 -10 dated 31.3.2003. Hence the applicant has been retired as per the provision of notification under reference that No. Fin(C)A(3) -3/98 in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Fundamental rules in their application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, namely:

(3.) IN view of the above, if on facts, the case of the Petitioner is covered under the judgment in CWP No. 5749 of 2010 and the same has attained finality and has been implemented and the Petitioner is a similarly situate person, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the Petitioner to Respondents/competent authority.