Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16764 (HP)

Nokh Ram v. Union of India

2026-02-28

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. As the common issues of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. The petitioners before this Court are Casual Paid Labourers, who were working under 396 RMPL (GREF) (Dett Basantpur and others) under the jurisdiction of 68 RCC (GREF) as per the following details:- “a) Petitioner No. 1.Shri Nokh Ram S/O Shri Brestu, age about 61 years, R/o Village - Hiun, PO: Reyog, Tehsil-Sunni, Distt Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 28.01.2008, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 22.07.2008 for 179 days only, (b) Petitioner No. 2.Shri Narain Dass S/O Shri Jinu, age about 65 years. R/o Village Tarar, PO Basantpur Tehsil-Sunni, Distt - Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1970, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 02.02.2007 for 179 days only, (c) Petitioner No. 3.Shri Bachu Lal S/O Shri Chet Ram, age about 62 years, R/o Village Mandaylu, PO Basantpur, Tehsil-Sunni, Distt - Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1979, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 02.02.2007 for 179 days only, (d) Petitioner No. 4.ShriBhupender Singh S/O Shri Puran Dass, age about 61 years, R/o Village -Dumehar, PO Kandarghat, Tehsil- Sunni, Distt Shimla (HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1985, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 02.02.2007 for 179 days only, (e) Petitioner No. 5. Shri Bhagat Ram S/O Sh. Hira, age DCT 202 about 61 years, R/o Village Dumehar PO Kandarghat, to Registrar Tehsil- Sunni, Distt Shimla(HP) not engaged with the BRO w.e.f. 1985, the said petitioner was engaged with this Org. on 14.06.2014 for 179 days only.” 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that on attaining the age of 60 years, their services stood terminated by the respondents verbally without any notice etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the light of the fact that there is no retirement age or superannuation age as far as Casual Paid Labour is concerned, the act of the respondents of terminating the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years is not justifiable in the eyes of law and they should have been allowed to serve the Department till they were medically fit. 4. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that Casual Paid Labourers can be employed on daily or monthly rates of pay for a maximum period of six months in terms of Annexure-F appended with the reply, but, it is not as if the Casual Paid Labourers have a right to continue beyond the age of 60 years also. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India has taken the Court through the reply filed by the respondents as well as documents appended therewith including Annexure-D and submitted that it is evident from Annexure-D that even in terms of the policy of the Himachal Pradesh Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board, no workman can be engaged, who is less than the age of 18 or above the age of 60 years. Learned Senior Panel Counsel thus submitted that there is no infirmity committed by the authorities in dispensing with the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years, because, the contention of the petitioner that they can be allowed to be continued even after the age of 60 years is not substantiated from any contemporaneous record or documents on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well documents appended therewith. 6. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with on attaining the age of 60 years. A perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petition demonstrates that the prayer of the petitioners is also that respondents be directed to reengage them on the same post as there is no criteria of maximum age limit fixed for the retirement of employees of the respondent-Department. 7. In the present case, it is not the case of retirement of the employees of the respondent-Department, because, the petitioners are not the regular employees of the respondent- Department. They just are Casual Paid Labourers, whose services have been dispensed with after attaining the age of 60 years. 8. 7. In the present case, it is not the case of retirement of the employees of the respondent-Department, because, the petitioners are not the regular employees of the respondent- Department. They just are Casual Paid Labourers, whose services have been dispensed with after attaining the age of 60 years. 8. In the light of the fact that no material has been placed on record by the petitioners from which it could be inferred that the petitioners have any right to continue beyond the age of 60 years and in the light of the fact that this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the age of superannuation ordinarily in Centre Government Employment is 60 years, this Court does not find any perversity in the act of the respondents in dispensing with the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years. 9. This Court concurs with the submissions made by learned Senior Panel Counsel that the petitioners do not have any right to continue as Casual Paid Labour without their being any cut off age limit. This Court can otherwise also take cognizance of the fact that because the petitioners have been working as contingent paid labourers and they basically perform the task of upkeep of the Border Road Organization, obviously, their physical strength is an important aspect which has to be taken into consideration and, therefore also dispensing with their services on attaining the age of 60, which ordinarily is the retirement age in central organization, cannot be held to be bad in law. 10. In this backdrop also, the act of the respondents of discontinuing with the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of 60 years cannot be faulted with. 11. In the light of the above observations, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.