2026:HHC:24792 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.5521 of 2019 Decided on :24.06.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Bir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of superannuation, whereby the petitioner has been retired at the age of 58 years, whereas he being appointee of the year 1997, ought to have been retired at the age of 60 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue with respect to the retirement of Class-IV employees has been set at rest by this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled, Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matter, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:24792 decided on 22.02.2022, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that it is the date of engagement and not the regularization for the purpose of permitting an employee to serve till 60 years. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier, which is a Class-IV category post in the year 1997 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 25.12.2008. It is not in dispute that date of birth of the petitioner as per service record is 18.05.1956. As per office order dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure A-3), he was retired from service on 30.04.2015, whereas he had completed 58 years of service as on 31.05.2014. Once the petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier in the year 1997, he ought to have been retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years, which he ought to have completed on 31.05.2016. 4. The respondents as per reply filed by them have not disputed the aforementioned facts and have stated that as per Notification dated 11.05.2001, the petitioner upon attaining the age of 58 years was to retire on 31.05.2014, but he was inadvertently allowed to continue uptill 30.04.2015 and as such he had rendered 11 months extra 3 2026:HHC:24792 service after attaining the age of 58 years, which service having been rendered illegally contrary to amended FR-56 rule. The petitioner has rightly been retired from Government service by respondent No.4 vide office order dated 30.04.2015. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. After passing the order on 30.04.2015, the issue regarding retirement of Class-IV employees has been adjudicated by this Court in Baldev’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that date of regularization of a Class-IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement which is decisive factor, if date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class- IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age and in case, it is later than 10.05.2001, the restriction in age up to 58 years will apply. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed prior to 10.05.2001 and thus to be retired at the age of 60 years. As noticed above, the petitioner ought to have completed 60 years as on 31.05.2016 and thus the 4 2026:HHC:24792 impugned order dated 30.04.2015, passed by respondent No.4 is unsustainable in law. Since the petitioner has not worked, he is not entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary for the period of service from the date of his retirement till deemed date of retirement. However, the period shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits and revision of pension. 8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.04.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by respondent No.4 is quashed and set aside and the petitioner shall be deemed in service till 31.05.2016. The respondents are directed to calculate the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner taking his date of retirement as 31.05.2016 and pay him arrears of pension within a period of three months from today and in case the same are not paid, the respondents shall pay interest @6% per annum from today till actual payment. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 24 th June , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge