Ramesh Chandra Sen & Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The petitioner have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the action of respondents by which they have been retired from service at the age of 60 years. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years.

Facts of the case, in brief, are as that the the petitioners were initially appointed as daily-rated employee. After completing continuous 240 days of service, they were classified as "permanent employee". The petitioners have rendered 35 years of service.

Respondent No.4 issued the notice dated 22.2.2019 informing one of the petitioners that he will be superannuated on completing the age of 60 years.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice/order, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition.

While issuing the notice vide order dated 27.2.2019, this Court has stayed the impugned order dated 22.2.2019 and permitted the petitioners to continue in service.

Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer by submitting that the petitioners were classified as unskilled employee and for unskilled employee, age of retirement is 60 years. Only the skilled employees are entitled to continue in the service up to the age of 62 years.

Similar issue came up for consideration before the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20824/2018 (Madan Singh Kushwah V/s. State of M.P.). By order dated 13.2.2019, said writ petition has been allowed by placing reliance over the order passed by the Division Bench of this Case in W.A. No.308/2016 (Ramji Prajapati V/s. State of M.P.) decided on 3.4.2017 and held that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years. Relevant part of the aforesaid order is reproduced below :

"After notice, the respondents have field the return in which it is stated that petitioner has rightly been retired in the light of the order dated 03/05/2017 as the GAD has directed all the Head of the Departments to retire the daily rated employees who are working equivalent to the post of regular Class-III and Class-IV employees at the age of 60 and 62 years, respectively, as the case may be. It is further stated that according to the policy introduced by State Government for daily rated employees, posts have been further classified mentioning Class-III and Class-IV and the petitioner has been classified on the post of driver which is Class-III post under the existing setup of respondents department, thus the petitioner has rightly been superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, therefore, no interference is called for.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramji Prajapati vs. The State of M.P. (W.A. No.308/2016 decided on 3rd April, 2017) has held :

"It thus appears that though the appellant has been given the title of Supervisor but he is being paid less than the wages payable to daily wager. Merely because he has been given title of Supervisor will not make him Supervisor as he is getting salary less than that of a daily wager. Since the appellant is working on a post which is equivalent to Class-IV, therefore, the age of superannuation of appellant would be 62 years in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules of M.P. Daily Wager Employees (Condition of Service) Rules, 2013."

The State Government has come up with policy dated 7.10.2016 in which all the daily rated employees have been directed to be classified as permanent employees and paid the minimum pay-scale under different cadres i.e. unskilled, semiskilled and skilled. By the said circular the State Government has withdrawn the M.P. Daily Wage Employee (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 and treated all the daily wagers as 'workmen' under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963.

Even otherwise, vide notification dated 31.03.2018, the State Government has amended the  मध्य प्रदेश शासकीय सेवक (अधिवार्षिकी-आयु) अधिनियम]1967 has substituted the word "62 years" in place of "60 years". The said notification has been given effect with effect from 31.03.2018 and retirement age of the Class-I to Class-III employees has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years.

Though the aforesaid notification is having prospective effect but in the present case, the petitioners are continuing into services by virtue of interim order passed by this Court. They are going to complete two years of service, after attaining the age of 62 years, hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances in totality, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the petitioners are held to be entitled to work up to the age of 62 years.

The petitions are allowed  in above terms. All pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of the connected writ petitions".

In the light of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner up to the age of 62 years. The petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits. The Writ Petition stands allowed.

No order as to costs."

In view of the above, in order to maintain parity between the similarly placed employees, the impugned order dated 22.2.2019 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioners into the service up to the age of 62 years. The petitioners will also be entitled for all consequential benefits.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.