IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 16265 of 2008 Decided on : 12.7.2011 ________________________________________________ Raman Bala … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another … Respondents. ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.. For the petitioner : Mr. Pawan Singh Advocate, vice Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. ________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma, Judge (oral). The petitioner, who was working in the respondent-department retired as Centre Head Teacher on 31.12.2007. The sole grievance raised by her is that since her date of birth is 1-1-1950, she ought to have continued in service and retired only on 31.1.2008, that is on the last day of the month of her birth. However, according to the respondents the date of birth of the petitioner being first of the month (1.1.1950), she has rightly been retired from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 58 years in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 terms of the first proviso to F.R. 56. The Rule along with the proviso is extracted below for ready reference:- “F.R. 56 [(a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Provided that a Government servant whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years.] ………………………………………” 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents and also taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that similarly situate Government servants, namely Smt. Shakuntla Kamboj, B.P.O Dharampur and Shri Kuldeep Singh, Dy. Director, whose date of birth was also first day of the month, were retired on the last day of that month and not on the last day of the preceding month, I am more than satisfied that in view of the express provision contained in the first proviso to F.R. 56, the contention raised by the petitioner that she should have retired from service on and with effect from 31.1.2008, is not legally tenable and more so when she has not 3 worked during the period 1.1.2008 to 31.1.2008 and thus can also not be entitled for any wages for that period on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 3. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed being without any merit. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 12th July, 2011. Lsp*