Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2019 DAILYLAW 2327 (HP)

ASHWANI KUMAR CHANDEL v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/1840/2019 · 2026-08-22

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1840 of 2019 Decided on: 22 .08.2026 Ashwani Kumar Chandel …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Surya Chauhan and A. Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached the Court inter alia praying that the respondents be directed to retire him at the age of 60 years as he was suffering from physical disability. 2. Record demonstrates that during the pendency of the petition, on 11.09.2019, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was pleased to grant the order of status quo qua the superannuation of the petitioner and on account thereof, the Court stands informed that the petitioner continued to serve up to the age of 60 years and thereafter stands superannuated. 3. In light of the fact that the petitioner indeed has performed his duties till the age of 60 years by virtue of the interim 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 order passed by the Court and as he has since superannuated, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the age of superannuation of the petitioner shall be treated as 60 years and he shall be paid the retiral dues, emoluments, etc., by treating his age of superannuation to be 60 years. 4. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. It is clarified that this order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case wherein the petitioner has retired after serving the department up to the age of 60 years and it should not be construed that an adjudication on this issue has been made by this Court and as prayed for by learned Deputy Advocate General, the same will not be treated as a precedent. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 22 , 2026 (narender)