2026:HHC:3304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.8078 of 2019 Decided on: 09.01.2026. ________________________________________________________ Jai Ram ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Jai Ram, had initially filed an Original Application i.e. OA No 3732 of 2016 before Learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal and upon abolition of the Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.8078 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s): (a). That respondent be directed to allow the applicant to perform his duties until he attain the age of 60 years and order of retiring the applicant the age of 58 years be declared as illegal and unconstitutional. (b). That the respondent may kindly be directed to act in accordance with law 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:3304 - 2 - and regularize the applicant with effect from 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority and fixation of pension. (c). The respondent may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of pay and other consequential benefits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.” 2. At the very outset Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this petition, the relief (b) stands granted and therefore, relief (c) being ancillary to relief (b) above is not pressed, in instant proceedings. FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. The surviving grievance in relief 7(a) is as set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Waged Beldar in IPH Sub- Division Churag, District Mandi, in 1991 and he had completed 240 days of continuous service from 1992 onwards till 2003 and thereafter, as per the Mandays Chart [Annexure P-1]. It is averred that the services of petitioner were regularized on 23.01.2007 [Annexure P-2] and petitioner retired from Government service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.08.2016. As per Office Order dated 2026:HHC:3304 - 3 - 01.08.2016 [Taken on Record]. 3(i). The grievance of the petitioner is that once the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in 1991 and had completed continuous service from 1992 onwards and was regularized on 23.01.2007 [Annexure P-2] i.e. after 10.05.2001 therefore, as per the Notification issued by the State Authorities under Fundamental Rule 56, the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years i.e. 31.08.2018. In the above backdrop, prayer is made for giving benefit of deemed continuation in service upto the age of 60 years, till 31.08.2018, with consequential benefits for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 04.08.2016, the State Authorities have filed a Reply- Affidavit dated 07.06.2017 of Superintending Engineer, I&PH Circle, Sundar Nagar. 4(i). Reply-Affidavit does not dispute the factual matrix of the case. It is further borne out from the Reply- 2026:HHC:3304 - 4 - Affidavit that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the benefit of work charge status stands granted to the petitioner on 25.03.2008 [Annexure R-I]. Reply- Affidavit indicates that once the petitioner was a Class- VI Employee who were appointed on or after 10.05.2001 therefore, he was rightly retired at the age of 58 years as per the Notification dated 10.05.2001 [Annexure R-2]. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that instant petition suffers from delay and laches. In this backdrop, the prayer is made for dismissing the writ petition. NO REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 5. Petitioner has not filed any rebuttal to the averments in the Reply-Affidavit but Learned Counsel has contended that the subject matter as to whether part-time or daily waged employees who were appointed/engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and were regularized on or after 10.05.2001 are to superannuate at the age of 58 years or 60 years has been answered by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, Baldev versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, mandating that part-time and daily wage incumbents who were engaged/appointed prior to 10.05.2001 and 2026:HHC:3304 - 5 - were regularized any time after 10.05.2001 are to retire at the age of 60 years as per the Notification dated 21.02.2018, for the reason, that all daily wagers who were appointed on part-time/daily wagers prior to 10.05.2001 constitute one homogenous Class and therefore all have a right to continue up to the age of 60 years. 6. Heard, Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General and have gone through the material available on record. ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for deemed continuation in service upto the age of 60 years i.e. 31.08.2018 for the following reasons: 7(i). Indisputably, the petitioner was engaged as a Beldar in year 1991 and he had rendered continuous service from 1992 onwards till 2003 as per Mandays Chart [Annexure P-1] and he was granted the work charge status from 01.01.2002 and he was granted 2026:HHC:3304 - 6 - regularization on 23.01.2007 [Annexure P-2], and petitioner who was admittedly engaged on daily wages prior to 10.05.2001 and was regularized any time thereafter has a right to continue in service upto 60 years of age i.e. 31.08.2018. In these circumstances, the claim of petitioner for continuity in service upto the age of 60 years, has force and the same is accepted. 7(ii). Stand of Learned State Counsel is that the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.08.2016 and therefore, the benefit of judgment, in the case of Baldev (supra) is not applicable. The above contention has been raised just to be negated, for the reason, that once the issue as to whether the part-time or daily wagers, who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and were regularized any time thereafter i.e. after 10.05.2001 should retire at the age of 58 years or whether they are liable to continue in service upto 60 years stands answered by the Full Bench of this Court in Baldev (supra). Moreover, once the judgement in case of Baldev (supra) is a judgment in rem and has attained 2026:HHC:3304 - 7 - finality, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for continue action in service upto 60 years i.e. till 31.08.2018. The Full Bench Judgement, in the case of Baldev (supra) reads as under: 5. Notifications/Clarification with respect to F.R. 56(e) and their effect: 5(i). Vide notification dated 30.07.1998, State of Himachal Pradesh amended F.R. 56(e) as under: (e) A Government servant in Class IV service or post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Class IV employee of the Secretariate security force who initially enters service on or after 15th day of September, 1969 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. As per F.R. 56(e) as amended by the State on 30.07.1998, a government servant in Class-IV service or post was to retire from service on attaining the age of 60 years. The word used in F.R. 56(e) was ‘service or post’. 5(ii). On 10.05.2001, further amendment was carried out in F.R. 56(e) by adding second proviso as under: “Provided further that a Class-IV Government servant appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification in Rajpatra Himachal Pradesh shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of he month in which he attains the age of 58 years.” The 2001 amendment came into force from the date of publication in the Gazette, i.e. on 11.05.201. The amendment was to the effect that all those Class-IV government servants appointed on or after 10.05.2001 could continue to serve only upto 58 years of age. The amendment used the word “appointed” and not “engaged”. The 2026:HHC:3304 - 8 - amendment though leads to a definite conclusion that those who were appointed/engaged on daily wage basis in Class-IV services and regularized prior to 10.05.2001 could continue to serve upto the age of 60 years. However, the position was not clear in the amendment qua those employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis in Class-IV services prior to 10.05.2001 and were continuing as such on 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. 5(iii). In order to clarify the situation, the Government issued a circular on 22.02.2010 (extracted earlier). In terms of this circular on 22.02.2010 [extracted earlier]. In terms of this circular, the amendment notification dated 10.05.2001 was made applicable to the Class-IV daily wagers as well. Those daily wagers, who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001, were to continue till the age of 60 years. However, such of the daily wagers, who were engaged after 10.05.2001, could serve till the age of 58 years. 5(iv). A vacuum still remained in the notification/ clarification about the superannuation age of daily wager engaged prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001. To meet this situation, another notification was issued on 21.02.2018, amending F.R. 56(e) yet again. This notification has not been noticed in the reference order dated 28.12.2019. Relevant portion of the notification reads as under:- “Short title and commencement:¬ 1.(1) These rules may be called Fundamental (in their application to the State of Himachal Pradesh) First Amendment, Rules, 2018. Amendment of 2. rule-56. (2) These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra (eGazette), Himachal Pradesh. In rule¬56 of the Fundamental Rules, after the second proviso to clause (e), the following third proviso shall be 2026:HHC:3304 - 9 - inserted, namely:¬ “Provided further that a Class¬IV Government servant appointed on part time/daily wages basis prior to 10-05-2001 and regularized on or after 10¬05¬ 2001 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.” The above amendment inserting third proviso in F.R. 56(e) came into force from the date of publication in the Gazette, i.e. on 22.02.2018. The gist of the amendment was that with effect from 21.02.2018, Class-IV government servants appointed on part-time/daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001, were to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. It was the date of first appointment/engagement, which was made the basis for their continuation in service till the age of 60 years and not the date of regularization. A corrigendum has also been issued by the State on 10.06.2019 to the effect that for the word ‘appointed’ used in the notification dated 21.02.2018, the word ‘engaged’ shall be substituted. F.R. 56(e) as it stood on 22.02.2018 (with corrigendum) now reads as under:- “(e) A Government servant in Class IV service or post shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Class IV employee of the Secretariat Security Force who initially enters service on or after the 15th day of September, 1969, shall retire from service on the afternoon 2026:HHC:3304 - 10 - of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty-eight years. Provided further that a Class-IV Government servant appointed on or after 10.05.2001 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years.(2001 amendment). Provided further that with effect from 21.02.2018 a Class-IV Government servant engaged on part time/daily wages basis prior to 10-05-2001 and regularized on or after 10-05-2001 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years. (2018 amendment)” 6(ii)(a). In terms of 2001 amendment of F.R. 56(e), such of the Class-IV employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized also prior to 10.05.2001, are entitled to continue to serve till the age of 60 years. This position is acknowledge in the judgements rendered in Bar Chand as well as Chuni Lal’s case, supra. 6(ii)(b). Such of the Class-IV employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001 were not given the benefit of continuation till the age of 60 years in Chuni Lal’s case. The judgement in Chuni Lal’s case was based upon the interpretation of F.R. 56(e), as amended by the respondents-State vide notification dated 10.05.2001. 6(ii)(c). In terms of the State notification dated 21.02.2018 carrying out further amendment in F.R. 56(e), with effect from 21.02.2018, all daily wagers appointed prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001 are to continue to serve till the age of 60 years. This amendment is post the decisions rendered in Bar Chand and Chuni Lal’s cases, supra and has not been noticed in the reference order dated 28.12.2019. While affirming the judgment of ld. Single Judge in Gian Singh’s case, ld. Division Bench though did not notice Chuni Lal’s judgment but held that writ 2026:HHC:3304 - 11 - petitioner’s date of regularisation was prior to 10.5.2001 therefore reduced age of 58 years introduced in 2001 amendment would not be applicable to him. 7. There is now no confusion regarding employees falling in para 6(ii)(a) above. These employees can continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. However, an anomalous situation has developed amongst the employees falling in para 6(ii)(b) & 6(ii)(c). The employees falling in above para 6(ii)(b) and 6(ii)(c) for all practical purposes belong to the same category and are similarly situated. Both sets of employees were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001. Such of the employees engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, if were in service on 21.02.2018, will continue to serve till they attain the age of 60 years. On the other hand, such of the employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, but have retired before the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018, will not get the benefit of notification dated 21.02.2018. This to our mind is wholly discriminatory. Similarly situated employees are being treated differently. The employees, who were engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized after 10.05.2001, constitute one homogenous class. Differential treatment to the employees falling in same homogenous class is impermissible. In fact, amendment carried out in F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 suggests that the date of regularization will have no impact upon the superannuation age. Date of engagement is the determinative factor. If a daily wager is engaged prior to 10.05.2021, then he is entitled to serve till 60 years of age irrespective of date of his regularization. This was held so in Bar Chand’s 2026:HHC:3304 - 12 - case, decided on 21.10.2010. However, at the time of decision in Bar Chand’s case, the amendment dated 21.02.2018 had not been carried out in F.R. 56(e). Therefore, though later judgment in Chuni Lal’s case dated 22.11.2011, holding the decision in Bar Chand’s case as per incuriam cannot be faulted as it was based upon strict interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as amended by the State at that time. However, in view of subsequent amendment of F.R. 56(e) on 21.02.2018 in the interregnum, situation has undergone further change. Reference made to the larger Bench is not only to decide about the inconsistency in the decisions referred therein, but also to put at rest related issues coming or likely to arise before different benches. Therefore, we hold that:- (i). There is an apparent inconsistency or conflict between the decisions referred to in the reference order dated 28.12.2019, which lies in a very narrow compass, as noticed in para 6(i) above. In Chuni Lal’s case, the decision rendered in Bar Chand’s case was held to be per incuriam. The decision in Chuni Lal’s case was based upon interpretation of F.R. 56(e) as it existed in the State at that time. But the judgment delivered in Tara Chand’s case did not notice the decision in Chuni Lal’s case. The judgment in Gian Singh’s case in respect of continuation in service was based upon the verdict in Tara Chand’s case. In both these judgments, learned Single Judges did not notice the judgment delivered in Chuni Lal’s case. In Letters patent appeal, the Division Bench while affirming the judgment passed by the ld. Single Judge in Gian Singh’s case though did not notice the judgment rendered in Chuni Lal’s case however the amendment dated 10.5.2001 reducing the superannuation age from 60 to 58 years was held to be not applicable to the writ petitioner, who was held entitled for regularisation prior to 10.5.2001. (ii). Inconsistency between Bar Chand and Chuni Lal now stands, not just resolved, but rather dissolved, in view of notification dated 21.02.2018 amending F.R. 56(e), issued by the State, which has now reinforced and reiterated what was held in Bar Chand’s case, i.e. date of regularization of a class IV daily wager whether prior or after 10.05.2001, will make 2026:HHC:3304 - 13 - no difference to the age of his continuing in service. It is the date of engagement, which is the 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. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. (iii). There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogenous class. Therefore the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly. Reference is accordingly answered. The writ petitions be now placed appropriately before the respective Benches.” 7(iii). While dealing with a similar fact-situation and after taking into account the mandate of law passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev (supra) this Court has allowed the benefit of deemed continuity in service upto the age of 60 years in the case of Hazari Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others [CWPOA No.2527 of 2020] decided on 24.12.2025. Based on the principles outlined by the Full Bench in Baldev 2026:HHC:3304 - 14 - (supra), which were followed by this Court in the case of Hazari Lal (supra), it is the date of engagement/appointment of a daily wager which is determinative of the age of superannuation of an employee. Based on the principles as mandated in the aforesaid judgements once a daily-wager was engaged/appointed prior to 10.05.2001 and was regularized on or after 10.05.2001, then such daily-wager was to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. In instant case, the petitioner was engaged in 1991 and had rendered continuous service with 240 days from 1992 till 2003 [as per the mandays chart] and he was granted work charge status on 01.01.2002 and was regularized on 23.01.2007 [Annexure P-2] and once the engagement/appointment of petitioner on daily wages was admittedly prior to 10.05.2001 and he stood regularized also therefore, the petitioner had a right to continue upto age of 60 years i.e. 31.08.2018. The adversarial order dated 01.08.2016 [Taken on Record] retiring the petitioner from service at the age of 58 years i.e. 31.08.2016, being 2026:HHC:3304 - 15 - contrary to Fundamental Rule 56(e) and the notification dated 21.02.2018 and the mandate of law in Baldev and Hazari Lal (supra) cannot sustain and accordingly, the Impugned Order relating the petitioner at the age of 58 years, is quashed and set-aside. 7(iv). Learned State Counsel states that the instant petition suffers from delay and laches and therefore, has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The above contention of Learned State Counsel is fallacious, for the reason, that the petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2016 whereas instant petition was filed on [02.08.2016] prior to his superannuation at age of 58 years. The petitioner had been vigilant enough and had sought legal recourse assailing his shortened superannuation at age of 58 years vis-à-vis right to continue upto the age of 60 years, with right for higher retiral benefits including higher pension on the basis of higher pay [though notionally] w.e.f. 01.03.2018 till day and denial 2026:HHC:3304 - 16 - is a recurring loss every month; and therefore, the plea of delay-laches is misconceived and turned down. 7(v). Learned State Counsel contends that once the petitioner stood retired from service at the age of 58 years on 31.08.2016 and has not actually worked from 31.08.2016 to 31.08.2018, therefore, the benefits may not be granted. The above contention, is without merit, for the reason, that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev (supra) has duly considered this eventuality, by mandating that if a person had not been actually worked, then also, in such an eventuality, the employee shall be deemed to have continued in service upto 60 years of age, as in this case [upto 31.08.2018], but, the entitlement of service benefits like pay fixation etc. shall entail notionally upto deemed date of superannuation of 60 years. However, after grant of notional benefits, the service benefits accruing after superannuation at the age of 60 years [on 31.08.2018] i.e. revised 2026:HHC:3304 - 17 - retiral benefits and enhanced pension shall be granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.09.2018 with all consequential benefits thereafter. DIRECTIONS: 8. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded herein above, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i). State Authorities are directed to treat the petitioner to be in deemed service upto the age of 60 years [i.e. 31.08.2018] for all purposes; (ii). Consequent upon deemed continuation in service upto 60 years; the State Authorities shall extend all admissible service benefits beyond 58 years upto 60 years, though notionally, to the petitioner; (iii). Based on deemed continuation as in direction (ii); State Authorities shall grant revised-enhanced retiral benefits i.e. Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Commuted Pension etc. from the rescheduled deemed date of superannuation [w.e.f. 01.09.2018] with all consequential benefits thereafter within two months from today; (iv). Failure to release benefits as in direction Nos. (ii) and (iii) supra, shall 2026:HHC:3304 - 18 - mandate Respondents for interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereafter till realization; (v). Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition as well as pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge January 09, 2026 [Shivender]