IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7794 of 2010 alongwith CWP No. 558 of 2011 Reserved on: 04.07.2011 Decided on: 06.07.2011 CWP No. 7794 of 2010 Punnu Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. CWP No. 558 of 2011 Ateh Mohammed …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. Both the petitions are disposed of by common judgment since identical question of law and fact are involved. 2. The petitioners in both the cases were initially employed with the Gobind Sagar Fisheries Cooperative 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- Marketing and Supply Federation, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Fish Federation’). This Federation was a Cooperative Society which was ordered to be wound up by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 2007. At the same time, the State took a decision to adjust/absorb all the employees of the Fish Federation in the Department of Fisheries, H.P. with prospective effect. The respondent-State proceeded to issue orders retiring the petitioners on their attaining age of 58 years. The petitioners challenged these orders in this Court by filing the present petitions. 3. According to both the petitioners, they were employed by the Fish Federation in the year 1979. They, therefore, claim that they should have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years and not the age of 58 years. The stand of the State is that in terms of the notification dated 10th May 2001, all the employees appointed on or after the said date are to retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years. 4. The short question which arises in these petitions is whether the aforesaid notification is applicable to the case of the petitioners or not. According to the petitioners, since they were employed prior to 10th May, 2001, this notification is not applicable to them, whereas according to the State, since the petitioners joined government service only after the winding of the Society in the year 2007, they effectively became -: 3 :- government servants only on 1st August, 2007 and, therefore, they are governed by the aforesaid notification. 5. The Fish Federation was a Cooperative Society. Even though the maximum shares may have been held by the State Government, the Society was an independent, autonomous body having a separate juristic entity. The employees of the Federation could not be termed to be the employees of the State. When the Federation was wound up, the State took a decision to adjust the employees of the Federation in the Department of Fisheries. The notification clearly states that the adjustment would be with prospective effect. Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the petitioners became government servants only on their absorption in the Government on 01.08.2007 and are, therefore, covered by the notification dated 10th May, 2001, which provides that workmen appointed on or after the date of publication of this notification shall retire from their service on attaining the age of 58 years. 6. Therefore, I find no merit in the petitions, which are accordingly, dismissed. Interim directions are vacated. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 6, 2011 (rajni)