Chindya vs M.P. State Electricity Board

J.K. Maheshwari, J.—Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2010, this petition has been preferred whereby the petitioners were directed to be superannuated on the date as specified in the said order on attaining the age of 58 years.

By filing this petition, the benefit to continue in service upto the age of 60 years has been prayed for seeking following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P/1) and it be held that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60 years and necessary direction in this regard be also issued to the respondents to continue the petitioners in service upto the age of 60 years.

Any other relief(s) which petitioners are found entitled may also kindly be granted to the petitioners alongwith exemplary cost."

It is stated at bar that the employees working in Gramin Vidyut Sahkari Society have been absorbed by the Board and in a similar writ petition filed by the other employees, the dispute has been resolved, in the case of Dongar Singh Versus State of MP and Others. Learned Single Judge in the case of Dongar Singh (supra) has passed the following directions:-

"It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was employee of Rural Electrification Cooperative Society and was appointed in the year 1984 as Fitter cum Welder. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman on 06.07.1988 and by the order of State Government dated 18.05.2004, 870 number of employees of Co-operative Societies were absorbed in service of MP Electricity Board. The absorption order reflects that the age of superannuation of the regular employees is still the same as applicable in the society. It is true that at the relevant time the age of the retirement was 58 years, however, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55(1) of MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 has extended the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. The society is still functional and not only this the age of retirement of identical persons who are in the service of MPSEB is 60 years as stated by learned counsel for the respondent/MPSEB.

Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that as in the case of employees who belong to the society the age of retirement was increased from 58 to 60 years and also keeping in view the fact that the age of retirement in identical employees also 60 years, there appears no justification in not granting the same benefit to the present petitioner, keeping in view the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, as the Society is still in existence.

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.05.2009 is hereby quashed. It is pertinent to notice that this Court has granted interim order in favour of petitioner of W.P. No. 3787/2009 (s) Gulabsingh on 19.06.2009 and the petitioner is very much continuing in service, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service up to the age of 60 years.

Based upon the aforesaid judgment, learned Single Judge passed the following order:-

Learned G.A. appearing for respondents has fairly stated before this Court that the controversy involved in the present case has already been concluded and other identically placed employees have been granted relief by this Court in the matter of Dongar Singh (supra) continuing upto the age of 60 years.

Keeping in view the aforesaid that the controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court, the present writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service upto the age of 60 years and grant the same benefits which have been extended to other identically placed persons namely, Dongarsingh and Gulabsing (supra).

No order as to costs."

Thereafter, Writ Appeal was preferred before the Division Bench, which has been decided as per order dated 9.12.2013 passing the following orders:-

"The present case is also similar to that. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the society is not in existence, hence age of retirement, which was applicable at the time of absorption of the respondent would be the date of retirement cannot be accepted because subsequently the age of the retirement in co-operative society has been enhanced by the Registrar as 60 years and the order of superannuation was passed in 2012 at that time the age of retirement in cooperative societies was 60 years. In such circumstances in our opinion the writ Court has rightly held that the respondent shall be eligible to continue up to the age of 60 years. We do not find any merits in the appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. Copy of one of the order passed in number of the writ appeals including Writ Appeal No. 365/2010 has been produced by which on 4.3.2014, the writ petition has been decided issuing similar directions.

Learned counsel for the respondents though opposes the prayer but he is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual aspect that the controversy involved in the case for continuation of the employees of the Society and for absorption upto the age of 60 years has been decided, holding that they cannot be retired at the age of 58 years.

Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the case of the petitioners shall be governed by the order passed in the case of Dongar Singh (supra) affirmed in the writ appeal as mentioned hereinabove and they would be entitled for all consequential benefits.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.