CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

State of M.P. and Another vs Smt. Sampat Bai

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 18 October 2011 · Citation: (2011) 10 MP CK 0048

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vimla Jain, J · K.K. Lahoti, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 17508 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 358 words
1.

This order shall decide this W.P. No. 17507/2011 State of M.P. Vs. Smt. Kaushalaya Bai and W.P. No. 17508/2011 State of M.P. vs. Smt. Sampat Bai in which similar controversy is involved. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P. No. 17507/2011.

2.

This petition is directed against award dated 21.5.2010 by which the Labor Court No. 1, Bhopal in Case No. 6/2007 ID Ref decided the reference in favor of respondent holding that the retirement of respondent was illegal and she was allowed 50 per cent wages for 5 years as she had already attained the age of superannuation.

3.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court that the petitioner was right in superannuating the respondent after completion of 30 years service but in view of the Full Bench decision of this High Court in Vishnu and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.

4.

Full Bench of this Court, considering the relevant provisions/rules held that the services of gangmen are governed by the Rules applicable to work charged and contingency paid employees even though the gangman is not included in the schedule of 1976 Rules and the age of superannuation is 62 years as other Class IV employees of the State Government because they are in comparable category.

5.

In view of the settled law of full Bench, retiring of respondent on completion of 30 years of service was totally unjustified. The respondent was entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years. In these circumstances, if the Labor Court directed payment of 50% of wages for the last five years, no fault is found. This petition is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.

6.

In W.P. No. 17508/2011, the respondent Smt. Sampat Bai has been awarded only 25% wages. As the respondent had not been noticed in this case, dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of the respondent to assail the aforesaid order, if advised so.

7.

With this observation, both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.