Raj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Water Carrier on 29.07.2002. His services were converted to daily wages on 29.11.2012. Thereafter, he was regularized on 04.03.2017. The petitioner was promoted as a Laboratory Attendant on 26.03.2022, which is a Class-III post. He superannuated as a Class-III employee on 31.03.2025. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is being paid pension on the basis of the last wages drawn by him vis-a-vis the post which he was holding at the time when he retired.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner, after his services were converted to a daily wager, served as a daily wage Water Carrier for 10 years, therefore, his daily wage service be counted along-with the service he rendered as a Class-IV employee for grant of pension, by treating him as a Class-IV employee throughout. He submitted that service rendered by the petitioner after promotion be also treated as service rendered against a Class-IV post and pension be paid accordingly by deeming his date of retirement to be 60 years. No other point was urged.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that the petition is completely misconceived. He submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Part-Time Water Carrier and his services were converted to daily wages on 29.11.2012. The petitioner was regularized as a Class-IV employee on 04.03.2017. He was promoted in the month of March, 2022 as a Laboratory Attendant, which is a Class-III post. He submitted that the petitioner is being paid the pension to which he is entitled to, in terms of the post held by him as on the date of his retirement and the last wages drawn by him. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the prayer of the petitioner that service rendered by him as a daily wager be taken into consideration along-with the service rendered by him as a Class-IV employee and treat even the service rendered by him as a Class-III employee, as a Class-IV employee is not only misconceived but also abuse of the process. He prayed that the petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith.

The facts, as have been narrated hereinabove, are not much in dispute. The prayer of the petitioner is very strange. He wants that the daily wage service rendered by him as a Class-IV employee be merged with the service rendered by him on regular basis as a Class-IV employee. Thereafter, he wants that as from the date of his promotion against the Class-III post till the date of his retirement, the service rendered by him as a Class-III employee be treated as rendered by a Class-IV employee and then he be given benefit of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled Baldev Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 26.07.2022, wherein which Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that the age of retirement of a Class-IV employee is to be 60 years and not 58 years.

This Court concurs with the submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General that this petition is not only misconceived but is also an abuse of the process of law. This Court fails to understand as to how the reliefs prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner. After regularization, had he retired without there being sufficient number of years of service post regularization in his kitty, then to render him eligible for the grant of pension, in light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 and Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, most the petitioner could have claimed was addition of two years in the total regular service rendered by him so as to render him eligible to receive pension on the strength of daily wage service.

As observed hereinabove, the petitioner wants this Court to nullify the entire service rendered by him as a Class-III employee and treat it as a Class-IV services and thereafter, also grant him the benefit of additional two years of service for pensionary and other benefits, by holding that he should have been superannuated at the age of 60 years, which cannot be done.

Fact of the matter is that the petitioner as from the year 2022 served against a Class-III post, after promotion and received the wages etc. of said post without any protest and also superannuated at the age of 58 years.

If the prayer made in the present petition by the petitioner is allowed, then it will open up a Pandora's box and this Court would obviously be flooded with this kind of litigation, which cannot be encouraged by this Court.

Once the petitioner stood promoted as a Class-III employee, he accepted the promotion and retired at the age of 58 years and now pension is also being paid to him on the basis of the last post held by him and also the last wages drawn by him qua which there is no dispute, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs, as have been prayed for.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Though this Court was inclined to impose cost upon the petitioner for filing this petition which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, but learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that no cost be imposed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.