IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. L.P.A. No. 231 of 2011. Decided on: 16.12.2011. 1. State of H.P. through Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1. 3. Divisional Forest Officer, Publicity Forest Division, Khallini. 4. Range Officer, Range Office Press, Kalaghat Solan. ……….Appellants. -Versus- Shri Datta Ram, S/o Sh. Shankar Mani, R/o Village Kaleen, Tehsil and District Solan (H.P.). Retired as Compositor in the office of Forest Department Press, Kalaghat, District Solan, H.P. …… Respondent. Appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 11.11.2010. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the appellants : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th November, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 7814 of 2008. 2 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that the respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as “the workman” for brevity sake) has approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Quash the letter dated 16.06.2001, Annexure A-1. (b) Direct the respondents to permit the applicant to work till the age of 60 years and not retire him before that date. (c) Direct the respondents to produce records of the case for the perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal. (d) Direct the respondents to pay the cost of the original application.” 3. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 11th November, 2010 by holding that since the workman was discharging his duties only as a skilled workman, he could not be retired on 30th June, 2001. Learned Single Judge ordered that the workman shall be deemed to have retired after attaining the age of 60 years and the respondents were further directed to take consequential action in accordance with law within a period of three months. It is clear from the judgment that there was a prolonged correspondence between various functionaries of respondent-department and the State Government regarding the retirement age of the persons working in Forest Department Printing Press, Kalaghat at Solan. 3 4. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General has argued that the conditions of service of the respondent are regulated under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 24th May, 1999 and he has to retire at the age of 58 years. 5. It is not in dispute that as far as the workers skilled/unskilled, working in the Himachal Pradesh Government Printing Press are concerned, they are categorized as workmen. In their cases, F.R.-56 (b) has been applied by the State Government. The workman, in the instant case, had been working in Kalaghat Printing Press of the H.P. Forest Department. The employer cannot apply two sets of rules to the same category discharging the same duties. The workman is working as a Compositor. The Compositor is skilled post and all the incumbents, as noticed above, working in skilled/unskilled categories in Himachal Pradesh Government Printing Presses are given the benefit of FR-56(b). The workman in the instant case cannot be discriminated against by the State Government, more particularly, on the ground that the H.P. Government Printing Press is registered under the Factory Act, 1948 and Kalaghat Printing Press is not registered under the Factory Act. What is to be seen by the employer, is whether the workman is working in skilled, unskilled or semi skilled capacity. In case the workman is working in skilled or unskilled capacity, the conditions of service are to be regulated under F.R.-56(b) and not under F.R.-56(a). Consequently, we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge, though on different reasons, as noticed above. 4 6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s). (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 16, 2011. (bhupender)