R.S. Kushwaha vs State of M.P. and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—Since these petitions involve similar question of facts and law, on the joint request of the parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. The petitioners in these cases are Laboratory Technicians. It is contended that the Laboratory Technicians should be treated as Teacher and, therefore, should be retired on attaining 65 years of age. The respondents have retired the petitioners on attaining 62 years of age.

At the threshold, it was pointed out that the matters are covered by the judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 2013/11(s) (Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of M.P. & Others). It was held in the said case that the Laboratory Technicians are not entitled to continue till 65 years of age. The said judgment of writ Court is affirmed in W.A. No. 362/11.

Without disputing the aforesaid position, Mrs. Ami Prabal, the learned counsel fairly submits that the only distinguishing feature in the present cases is that as per the circular of the Government dated 16.4.2010, the petitioners were treated as Teachers and, therefore, their age of superannuation was enhanced from 62 to 65 years. It is contended that this circular dated 16.4.2010 was not taken into account in the earlier round of litigation. In addition, it is contended that the petitioners have imparted instructions to the Teachers and, therefore, they are entitled to be treated among teaching staff and are further entitled to continue till 65 years.

The prayer is opposed by Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, learned Govt. Advocate.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

I find no substance on the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to deviate from the view taken by this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra). The contention that the circular dated 16.4.2010 was not taken into account is factually incorrect. The order passed in W.P. 2013/11 makes it clear that the said circular was taken into account before reaching to the conclusion. Apart from this, M.P. Adhivarshiki (Sansodhan) Adhiniyam was brought into force which does not include the Laboratory Technician as "Teacher". Merely because in some cases the instructions are imparted by the petitioners, it will not bring them within the ambit of "Teacher". I am bound by the judgment in Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra) affirmed by the Division Bench. I find no distinguishing feature to deviate from the said view. Resultantly, the petitions are merit-less and is hereby dismissed.