Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees

Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition of Man Bahadur, who challenged his retirement at the age of 58 instead of 60, claiming his classification as a Class-IV employee entitled him to extended service. Justice Namit Kumar ruled that the petitioner had approached the Court after an inordinate delay of eight years, rendering his claim unsustainable on both procedural and substantive grounds.
The petitioner, employed as a Diesel Mechanic by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), contended that his retirement order from April 23, 2008, was unlawful. However, the Court held that the delay in filing the petition, combined with the petitioner’s acceptance of pensionary benefits, disqualified him from seeking relief.
Man Bahadur initially joined the PSPCL in 1976 as a Beldar. After various appointments and retrenchments, he was regularized as a Diesel Mechanic in 2004. The corporation retired him in 2008, citing the retirement age for Class-III employees as 58 years. Bahadur argued that he was a Class-IV employee, where the retirement age was 60 years, and alleged that his classification was incorrect.
Despite the classification dispute, Bahadur waited until July 2016—more than eight years after his retirement—to file his petition. He also forfeited his claim for promotion during the hearing, focusing solely on the retirement age issue.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s position and pay scale clearly identified him as a Class-III employee, making his retirement at 58 lawful. Justice Namit Kumar stated that the petitioner’s delay in seeking redress undermined his case, particularly as he had accepted pension benefits without protest for years after his retirement.
Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Yunus (Baboobhai) A. Hamid Padvekar v. State of Maharashtra and State of Uttaranchal v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, the Court underscored that “delay and laches” are critical factors in exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. It observed that entertaining stale claims would disrupt established practices and unfairly burden public resources.
The High Court dismissed Bahadur’s petition, affirming that the retirement age was correctly applied and the significant delay in filing the claim rendered it legally unsustainable. The judgment reinforces the importance of timely action in administrative disputes and highlights the judiciary's reluctance to reopen settled matters without compelling reasons.
Date of Decision: November 19, 2024.