Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/7029/2010 on 29 December 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 7029 of 2010.
Decided on: December 29, 2010.
Kailaso Devi
…..Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and others
…..Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge.
For the petitioner:
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the Respondents:
Mr. R.K. Bawa, A. G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G., and Mr.J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral)
The petitioner is aggrieved since she was retired at the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner, she should have been retired only at the age of 60 years. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, all those employees, who have been regularized prior to the year 2001, are to be retired at the age of 58 years. There may not be any quarrel with the well settled proposition. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, though not stated in detail so in the writ petition, is that as far as the Education Department is concerned, there are different Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the Education Department and part-time employees are entitled to have direct entry into regular service without going through the daily waged service, subject to the availability of vacancy and subject to non-availability of daily wager on the date of vacancy. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in CWP No. 7896/2010, titled as Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. The petitioner may file an appropriate representation within a period of one month before the second respondent and if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to regular appointment prior to May 2001, she shall be permitted to continue till the age of 60 years. However, we make it clear that on account of exercise, as above, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the actual High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13001-DB ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:04:50 :::CIS
2 period, found otherwise entitled in regular service but not actually worked and the same shall be worked out only notionally for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The decision, as above, shall be taken by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and a copy of the judgment, referred to above, alongwith copy of an appropriate detailed representation.
2. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
Copy Dasti.
(Justice Kurian Joseph),
Chief Justice.
December 29, 2010.
( Justice V.K. Sharma), (vt/pankaj)
Judge. High Court of H.P. 2010:HHC:13001-DB ::: Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 12:04:50 :::CIS