DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Retirement at 58: Chandigarh Home Guards volunteer moves High Court

Chandigarh, May 12 A Home Guards volunteer has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the quashing of an order dated May 6, whereby he has been ordered to be discharged from the rolls of the “Chandigarh Home...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement
Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 12

A Home Guards volunteer has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the quashing of an order dated May 6, whereby he has been ordered to be discharged from the rolls of the “Chandigarh Home Guards Organisation” on attaining the age of 58.

Advertisement

The petitioner, Amrik Singh, through counsel Divya Sharma, has contended this was despite enactment of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022, “on account of which the age of retirement has been increased from 58 years to 60 years”.

He submitted that the impugned order was passed in complete disregard of the new Rules notified vide notification dated March 29. Under the new Rules, the petitioner should have been allowed to continue till 60.

Advertisement

Sharma added the petitioner’s case for extension of service by two years was even been recommended by the Station House Officer of the Sector 11 police station where he was posted. The Home Guards have been put on a par with police officers for performing duty during emergent times.

Elaborating, she submitted the Home Guards volunteers were held to be on par with the constables. They were granted same pay scales as applicable to constables serving in the Chandigarh Police with effect from March 11 2015.

“All persons employed by or serving the UT, Chandigarh, who were to retire on attaining the age of 58 years after April 1, have not been retired and have been allowed to continue in service in consonance with the new Rules. However, the same benefit has not been extended in the case of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned action of the respondent-authorities is discriminatory,” she submitted.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Classifieds tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper