SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present writ petition is very short. Admittedly, the petitioner was working as Work Charge Mistri with the respondents. The retirement age of a work charge Mistri is 60 years. However, the petitioner was retired, on attaining the age of 58 years. He challenged his retirement before the learned H P Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal held that merely because the post of work charged work Mistri was clubbed with the post of work charged work Inspector for the purpose of pay scale did not mean that the retirement age of the petitioner was reduced from 60 years to 58 years. Consequently, he was ordered to be reinstated. However, it was ordered that since the petitioner has not worked, he shall not be paid any back wages for the period between his illegal superannuation to his reinstatement but such period shall be counted towards his pay fixation and length of service for retiral benefits.

(2.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the latter part of the order whereby benefits of wages, for the period when he was out of job i.e. 1 year 7 months and 11 days were not paid to him.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , in the present case the petitioner was not at all fault. The stand of the State is that its action was taken bonafide. Since the petitioner was given the pay scale of Class III post of work Inspector for which the retirement age is 58 years, the State bonafide was of the view that the petitioner will superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years and, therefore, the order of retirement was passed.