Siyaram Sagar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the employee of respondent/Corporation and was directed to be retired vide order

dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure-P/1) w.e.f. 30.09.2019 after attaining the age of 60 years and the said order has been assailed by the petitioner saying

that the age of retirement is 62 years. He relies upon the decisions passed by this Court in W.P. No.8393/2019 and other connection writ petition

wherein the age of superannuation of the employee of the respondent/Corporation is held 62 years and in W.A. No.754/2019 and other connected

appeals, the Division Bench has affirmed the said finding vide judgment dated 15.11.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an application for urgent hearing along with the order passed by the Managing Director dated

31.03.2020, in which, the similarly situated employee who got retired on 30.09.2019, has been directed to be reinstated in service and was allowed to

continue till the age of 62 years.

Since the similarly situated employee has been directed to be continued till the age of 62 years, therefore, I have no other option but to consider the

request of the counsel of the petitioner and to grant similar benefit to the petitioner as has been granted to similarly situated employee namely, K.K.

Trivedi.

Considering the above, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.754/2019 and

also take note of the order passed by the Managing Director dated 31.03.2020 in respect of similarly situated employee namely, K.K. Trivedi and

allow the petitioner to continue in service.

The decision in this regard be taken up by the authority within a period of 15 days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.

The petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly, disposed of.