IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 445 of 2005 Date of decision: 24.7.2008 H.R.T.C and others Petitioners. Versus Krishan Kumar. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Harinder Singh Rawat, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal dated 8th December, 2004, whereby the petitioner Himachal Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as HRTC) has been directed to retire the applicant on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.9.2004 with all consequential benefits. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the respondent was employed as a driver with the HRTC. On 29.7.1986 he met with an accident while on duty. He was found physically unfit to carry on 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 working as a driver. Thereafter, the Regional Manager, HRTC, issued an order on 29.6.1990 appointing the respondent as Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs.750- 1350, which admittedly the pay scale of Chowkidar. However, the basic pay of the respondent which was Rs.1230/- at the time when he was working as driver was protected. It is not disputed that the age of superannuation for a driver is 58 years, whereas the age of superannuation of a Chowkidar is 60 years. The HRTC issued an order retiring the respondent w.e.f. 30.9.2002 in the month of September, when he attained the age of 58 years. This action was challenged by the respondent and the original application filed by him was allowed by the learned Tribunal. The main argument of Shri H.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the HRTC is that the respondent is drawing two benefits, his pay as driver stands protected and therefore, he is drawing a higher pay than Chowkidar and in addition thereto he has got the advantage of retiring at the age of 60 years. True it is that the respondent is getting double benefit. But this double benefit has been granted to him by the HRTC itself. The order dated 29.6.1990 clearly states that the respondent has been granted fresh appointment as Chowkidar and his basic pay as of driver 3 has been protected. The HRTC at the time it issued the order in the year 1990 did not put any other condition in the said letter that the age of retirement of the respondent would be that fixed for drivers. The age of retirement of a person is governed by the post which he holds. It is not the pay but the post which will govern the age of retirement. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner could not have been retired at the age of 58 years since he was actually working and had been duly appointed as Chowkidar. Consequently, we find no merit in the petition, which is rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 24th July, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™