Class-IV employees engage before May 10,2001 can serve till 60 yrs

Himachal Pradesh High court passed a ruling yesterday fixing the service age of regular class IV employees employed to 60 yrs whether  they were engaged or appointed as daily wagers prior or after May 10, 2001.
 A Bench comprising Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq , Mr.  Justice Ajay Mohan Goel and Ms.  Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua , passed an order on a petition filed by the petitioner Baldev. No difference to the age of petitioner continuing in the service , the order mentioned that there could  be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class IV employees belonging to one homogenous class.
” If engagement or appointment is prior to May 10, 2001 , the class – IV employee would  continue to serve till 60 years of age . ” Court held.. In case it is later than May 10 2001 , then restriction in age upto 58 years would apply. The court broadened the scope  of  retirement date  of such employees said that those 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 would not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages or salary etc.  for 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 years of pension accordingly.  
Earlier, a Division Bench of this High Court observed an apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by different Benches of this High Court regarding interpretation of Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules ( F.R. ) vis – a vis notificationMay 10.  amending this Fundamental Rule in the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as circular dated Feb 22, 2010 clarifying the amendment and its applicability. The court decided this issue on Feb 23 as it was referred to authoritative pronunciation to the larger Bench vide order dated Dec 28, 2019.