PARMA RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, admittedly, was engaged as a Beldar in respondent-department in the year 1991. On the completion of 10 years continuous service as such, he was brought on work-charge establishment on and w.e.f. 2.2.2001. He was subsequently regularized as such on and w.e.f. 30.9.2006. He is aggrieved from office order dated 17.12.2011 Annexure P-6, whereby the 3rd respondent has notified his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2011 (afternoon).

(2.) The complaint is that he being a workman (ClassIV employee) and having been brought on work-charge establishment on and w.e.f. 2.2.2001 irrespective of having been regularized as Beldar 30.9.2006 is due for retirement on attaining the age of 60 years in terms of FR 56(b) and that the Notification dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure P-2) qua amendment in FR 56(b) and reducing thereby the retirement age of such employees in the State from 60 years to 58 being prospective has no application in his case.

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondent department, as disclosed from reply to the writ petition and supplementary affidavit dated 28.2.2013, in a nutshell, is that had the petitioner continued on workcharge establishment alone and his services not regularized after the amendment in FR 56(b) (Annexure P-2), he would have superannuated from service on attaining the age of 60 years. However, since he was regularized as Beldar on and w.e.f. 30.9.2006, i.e. after the amendment in FR 56(b), therefore, in terms of the amended provisions in the Fundamental Rules, vide Notification Annexure P-2, he had to retire at the age of 58 years and as such stood rightly retired from service on 31.12.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation in accordance with rules.