In the case of Roshan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, the Petitioner, Roshan Lal, reached the Court and acclaimed that he was superannuated at 58 while according to the retirement policy the age is 60 years. It was observed that the policy was withdrawn and the age for retirement is 58. Further, Roshan Lal was directed to approach the state to resolve any queries regarding the new rules as the rules are made by the state not the Court.
Roshan Lal claimed that he was retired before the date set by the government i.e 60 years. Roshan Lal is 58 years old and stated that he was retired from his job 2 years early which is inconsistent with the policies of the government of the state. Thus, he filed a Petition and prayed to the Court to get the concerned authorities to restore his job so he can complete his tenure and retire as per the retirement policy of the government.
Arguments made by the Petitioner
The learned counsel for Roshan Lal stated that only he was retired before his tenure was completed while other people in similar circumstances have retired as per the policy i.e after completing 60 years.
Arguments made by the Respondent
The learned counsel for the Respondent stated that the Petitioner had been retired as per the retirement policy which was 58 years. It further stated that the policy for retirement at 60 years was withdrawn and now the age for superannuation is 58 years.
Observations made by the Court
The Court observed that the Petition filed by Roshan Lal is irrelevant as of now as the matter is concerned with the state government as it makes the law and the Court has no say in it until it is unconstitutional thus, Roshan Lal has to address the Government for pursuing reasons for issuance of a notice of retirement at the age of 58 years and withdrawal of the previous retirement policy.
Further, abiding by the rules set by the government, the action of superannuation of Roshan Lal at 58 years was deemed as valid.
Based on the aforementioned grounds, the Petition was dismissed and the Petitioner was instructed to approach the state as it would be more relevant in this situation for the government to answer any query.
Click here to view the Judgement.
Contribute to this Page
Libertatem.in is working to expand this Law Notes Section and is open to any submission relating to this Act or specific Section. In case you have any college project, article, case analysis, case comment or any blog which you think would help contribute to this page or Law Notes section in general, please feel free to check out our Law Notes Submission Guidelines and submit your work for publication.