Approach the State in Case of Questions Related To Laws Made Unless Law Is Being Perceived as Unconstitutional: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Excerpt

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 It was observed that the policy was withdrawn and the age for retirement is 58.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.

Brief Facts 

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.

Court’s Judgment

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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -