IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.172 of 2025 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Shabnam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. That appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be issued, directing the respondent to enhance the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 to 60 years as per the judgment passed in State of Punjab & others Vs Bhupinder Singh in LPA no.1719 of 2011 decided on 25.09.2012 (affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8855 of 2014), CWPOA 7058/2020 and CWP No.1577/2018. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 II. That the respondents be directed to quash and set aside the notification dated 4th nov. 2019 and office letter dated 15.10.2024 Annexure P-7.” 3. As per the pleaded case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher in the respondent- Education Department on 09.09.1996. That he is a disabled person suffering from 60% locomotor disability. Petitioner relies upon office memorandum dated 29.03.2013 for remaining in service of the respondents till his attaining the age of 60 years instead of 58 years. In support of this claim, reliance has been placed upon certain decisions as mentioned in paras 4 to 6 of the writ petition. 4. The claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed as the aforesaid office memorandum dated 29.03.2013 was withdrawn by the respondents vide office memorandum dated 04.11.2019, whereby retirement age of disabled persons was brought from earlier enhanced 60 years back to 58 years. The validity of office memorandum dated 04.11.2019 was assailed in Ses Ram Versus State of H.P. & others2. Hon’ble Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of office memorandum dated 04.11.2019. The petitioner has, inter alia, assailed the office memorandum dated 04.11.2019, however, this 2 CWP No.851 of 2020, decided alongwith connected matters on 31.07.2020 3 issue has already been adjudicated upon in Ses Ram’s2 case. Therefore, petitioner’s claim to continue to serve the respondents till his attaining the age of 60 years is already covered against him under the aforesaid pronouncement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record any other pronouncement of law subsequent to the decision in Ses Ram’s2 case. Hence, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua February 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh