IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3324 of 2025 Decided on: 11th March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Manohar Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage as in view of the law laid down in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others2 , there is no requirement for calling reply from the respondents. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No. 2274 of 2021, decided alongwith connected matters on 28.05.2024 - 2 - 3. Petitioner was serving as Class-IV employee. He was engaged as such on daily wage basis during the year 2003. His services were regularized on 31.03.2015. The respondents retired the petitioner on 31.01.2023, i.e. on his attaining the age of 58 years. Petitioner’s preferred representation (Annexure P- 6) to the respondents that he had been unjustifiably retired on 31.01.2023 at the age of 58 years, whereas, in view of law down in Satya Devi’s2 case, he was entitled to continue to serve till the age of 60 years. Therefore, his retirement was unlawful. The petitioner prayed for the benefits as allowed under the aforesaid judgment. 4. Petitioner’s representation was rejected by the Executive Engineer, Baijnath Division, HPPWD-Respondent No.3 on 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-7). This order has given occasion to the petitioner to institute this writ petition. Respondent No.3 has rejected the representation of the petitioner only on the ground that he was initially engaged as Daily Waged Beldar in the year 2003; His services were regularized on 31.03.2015 and he retired from the government service on 31.01.2023, therefore, in view of the - 3 - Government Notifications dated 10.05.2001 and 21.02.2018, he was not entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years. 5. The reasoning given by respondent No.3 for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is absolutely contrary to the law laid down in Satya Devi’s2 case, which holds 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. The petitioner had claimed the benefits of decision in Satya Devi’s2 case in her representation. While rejecting petitioner’s representation, respondent No.3, has not even reverted to the aforesaid decision. The rejection is mechanical. Under these circumstances, there is no escape from conclusion that the rejection order is bad in eyes of law, accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No.3/Competent Authority is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-6) afresh in consonance with the law laid down in Satya Devi’s2 case. Appropriate order in this regard be passed within four weeks - 4 - and it be also communicated to the petitioner. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 11,2025 R.Atal