Vivek Singh Thakur, J, Vivek Singh Thakur, J
The petitioner herein was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier on 9.8.2002 and, thereafter, on the basis of policies of the respondents-State, she was converted into the whole time contingent paid worker and, thereafter, was regularized /promoted as a Peon vide office order dated 13.07.2017.
2. The respondents-State had issued Notification dated 21.2.2018, with respect to the age of retirement of Clause -IV employee relevant portion of which reads as under:
“Provided further that a Class-IV Government servant appointed on part time/ daily wages basis prior to 10.5.2001 and regularized on or after 10.5.2001 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.”
3. As per aforesaid Notification, the employees engaged prior to 10.5.2001 were to be retired at the age of 60 years, whereas employees engaged after 10.5.2001, were to be retired at the age of 58 years.
4. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid Notification, on the ground that cut of date fixed as 10.5.2001 in Notification dated 21.2.2018 (Annexure A-3) is unconstitutional, irrational and arbitrary.
5. The petition was filed in the year 2019. Till date, no reply has been filed by the respondents-State.
6. The issue with respect to legality and constitutionality of the date i.e 10.5.2001 in the Notification dated 21.2.2018, already stands adjudicated by Principal Division Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P., decided on 28.5.2024, and connected matters, wherein after discussing the entire issue and various judgments, finding has been given as under:
“108 Like in the decision in B.Prabhakar Rao 1985 (Supp)SCC432) in the instant case too, after the age of superannuation was reduced from 60 to 58 years vide notification dt.10.5.2001 , it appears that the State Government realised that they had taken a step in the wrong direction and that serious wrong and grave injustice had been done to their employees. It therefore sought to reverse the said decision in the notification dt.21.2.2018 by again increasing the age of superannuation to 60 years, but while doing so, it gave such benefit only to such of class-IV employees who had been engaged on part time /daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001 and regularized on or after 10.5.2001. It excluded the employees who had been engaged on part time /daily wage basis / appointed after 10.5.2001 and is insisting that they retire on attaining the age of 58 years.
109. It has overlooked the fact that all the petitioners are class-IV employees and once their services are regularized their birthmarks would get obliterated, i.e. the date of their initial engagement or the date of regularization would stand obliterated on entering into a common pool of class-IV employees. They all get fused into or integrated as one common service. Merely because the dates of engagement/ regularization/ recruitment are different, there cannot be discrimination with regard to their age of superannuation.
110. The learned Advocate General was unable to highlight any rationale or logic to distinguish between class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and those engaged after 10.05.2001 qua their age of superannuation.
111. It is not the case of the State that those who are appointed prior to 10.05.2001 possessed some superior quality over and above that which was possessed by those appointed after 2001, in order to justify prescribing different ages of superannuation to those different groups.
112. No explanatory statement to the notification dt.21.2.22018 has been filed by the respondents giving the logic behind the decision to exclude the class IV employees engaged after 10.5.2001 and regularized after the said date from the benefit of higher age of superannuation. Not even an attempt was made to provide the “objects and reasons” for the said decision by producing the files relating to the taking of such decision.
113. As stated above, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the notification dt.21.2.2018. The State has not sought to indicate the differentia or the nexus between differentia of those engaged before 10.05.2001 and the object sought to be achieved. It has not sought to justify that differentia has rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the notification.
114. For the aforesaid reasons, we disagree with the contention of the respondents that categorizing of persons engaged on different dates on the basis of applicability of Rules prevailing at the time of their engagement qua their age of superannuation does not amount to arbitrariness, discrimination or unfairness in any manner The comparison made by the respondent with concepts of fixation of seniority and promotion that they are fixed on date of appointment is wholly inappropriate. We also disagree with the plea of respondents that persons engaged on different dates are not alike for the purpose of service benefits.
115. We agree with the contentions of petitioners that the object sought to be achieved by enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years is to enable lowly paid Class-IV employees to enjoy benefit of services for longer duration, but imposition of the cut off date frustrates this object.
116. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that distinction sought to be made in the impugned notification dt.21.2.2018 between class-IV employees engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and those engaged after 10.05.2001 does not stand judicial scrutiny and touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the cut off date of 10.5.2001 in the notification dt.21.2.2018, is arbitrary.
117. We therefore hold that that there ought to be same age of superannuation prescribed for all class - IV employees i.e 60 years.
118. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons we strike down the words “appointed on part time/daily wage basis prior to 10.5.2001 and regularized on or after 10.5.2001” in the notification dt. 21.02.2018 and declare that all class-IV Government servants irrespective of their initial date of engagement or the date of their regularization would retire on the last day of the month in which they attain the age of their superannuation of 60 years.
119. All the Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Such of the petitioners/ Class IV Government servants who had retired from service prior to attaining age of superannuation of 60 years, shall be reinstated by the respondents if they have not crossed the age of 60 years as on date. Others who will not be able to be reinstated now on ground that they have already attained the age of 60 years, shall be paid compensation equal to the total emoluments which they would have received had they been in service until they attained the age of 60 years, less any amount they might have received by way of pension., etc. They will also be entitled to consequential retiral benefits. These shall be paid within 3 months from today. Those who are continuing in service by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court shall continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years. No costs.”
7. Being similar petition with identical issue involved herein, present case is also squarely covered by the judgment dated 28.5.2024, passed in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, titled as Satya Devi vs. State of H.P and connected matters, and, therefore, and accordingly, the said judgment shall be applicable in the present case mutatis mutandis for all intends and purposes.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed and disposed of with observation that relief shall be extended to the petitioner herein herein terms of para 119 of the judgment in CWP No. 2274 of 2021, as referred to herein above within six weeks
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
