Roshan Lal vs State Of H.P. & Others

L. Narayana Swamy , CJ

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Policy of the Government, the petitioner has to retire at the age of 60 years. However, the respondents quite contrary to the Policy have issued notice of retirement at the age of 58 years. He further submits that in similar circumstances, similarly situated persons have superannuated at the age of 60 years. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to the Policy of the Government.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioner is supposed to retire at the age of 58 years and not 60 years as the Policy has been withdrawn.

Be that as it may, when the petitioner claims that he has to retire at the age of 60 years, he has to approach the Government for seeking reasons for issuance of notice of retirement at the age of 58 years and until and unless his case has been considered and rejected, the petitioner would not get any cause of action.

Under these circumstances, we dispose of the present petition by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents within a period of one week from today. On receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a period of three weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court again, in case the decision on the representation goes against him.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.