Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 888 (MP)

Arun Kumar Sonone v. State of M. P.

2000-08-24

ARUN MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2000
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the order of M. P. Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Bhopal, has filed the present petition claiming himself to be teacher and stating that he should have been retired only on completion of the age of 60 years and that his retirement on September 30, 1995 on completion of the age of 58 years was bad in law. 2. In order to appreciate the Petitioner's submission, the relevant facts may be noticed. The Petitioner was appointed initially as Drawing Instructor in M. P. Government Polytechnic, Jabalpur on March 2, 1963. He was thereafter appointed to the post of Assistant Development Officer on March 2, 1974 in Rural Industrial Project. The Petitioner submits that as Assistant Development Officer, he used to discharge the duty of Training, Designing and Development of Handicraft and he was incharge of the Training-cum-Production Centre at Ambikapur. He also used to impart training to rural youths for self employment. His duty was also to establish rural industry, artisan industry, and small scale industry, in rural areas. He was running 150 looms for Tibetian Carpet Training. 3. With the passage of time, the Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director/General Manager, Industries Department on September 17, 1980. In the promoted post he was imparting teaching and training in handicraft. He was selected for training and teaching the rural youths for self employment. Petitioner was allegedly performing duty in industrial development of the District, employment generation, establishment of industries (for giving training for rural youths for self employment) and entrepreneur development programme. It is the further case of the Petitioner that he was holding the lien of the post of Drawing Instructor which post he held before his appointment in the year 1974 as Assistant Development Officer. Thus, according to him, it should be deemed that the Petitioner is still holding the post of Drawing Instructor and he could be retired only on the completion of the age of 60 years, and not before it. 4. Prior to his retirement, the Petitioner represented to the Commerce and Industries Department that he should be treated to be within the definition of "teacher" as per M. P. Shaskiya Sevak (Superannuation Amendment) Act, 1987. However, no heed was paid to his representation and he has been retired w.e.f. September 30, 1995. 5. 4. Prior to his retirement, the Petitioner represented to the Commerce and Industries Department that he should be treated to be within the definition of "teacher" as per M. P. Shaskiya Sevak (Superannuation Amendment) Act, 1987. However, no heed was paid to his representation and he has been retired w.e.f. September 30, 1995. 5. The submission raised by the Petitioner that by virtue of his initial appointment as Drawing Instructor he should be treated as "teacher" may be examined first. The Petitioner was appointed in the department of commerce and Industries of State of M. P. as per his selection by the P.S.C. directly and his selection had nothing to do with his service in the capacity of Drawing Instructor in Government Polytechnic, Jabalpur as is apparent from the appointment order dated March 2, 1974. The appointment of Petitioner as Drawing Instructor was purely temporary and the Petitioner had opted for fresh appointment in a different department. By virtue of his selection through P.S.C. he cannot derive any advantage of his initial appointment as Drawing Instructor so as to avail the benefit of retirement age of 60 years prescribed for teachers. It was not a case of promotion, but direct appointment and the Petitioner has retired from the post of Deputy Director in the Commerce and Industries Department itself. Thus, the submission raised by the Petitioner is untenable. 6. The other submission that Petitioner was a 'teacher' may now be adverted to. The Petitioner claims the benefit of amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 applicable in the State of M. P. by Act called "The Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967. F.R. 56(1--a) as inserted by M. P. Amendment Act No. 35 of 1984 w.e.f. 5-9-1984 runs as under: 56. Age of superannuation. (1)...................... (1-a) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (3), every Government teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years: Provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty years. Explanation has been further added to F.R. 56 by Amendment No. 23/87 w.e.f. 5-9-1985 to the following effect: Explanation. Explanation has been further added to F.R. 56 by Amendment No. 23/87 w.e.f. 5-9-1985 to the following effect: Explanation. For the purpose of this sub-rule "Teacher" means a Government servant, by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educational institution run by the Government including technical or medical education institution in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/Collegiate Technical/Medical education service. 7. It is clear from bare reading of F.R. 56 as amended by M .P. Superannuation Amendment Act that the retirement age for a 'teacher' is 60 years. A teacher need not be designated as "teacher" so as to avail the benefit of the age of retirement, but what is necessary under F.R. 56 is that appointment must be for the purpose of teaching and such an appointment must be in an 'educational institution' and the appointment must have regard to the recruitment rules applicable to such appointments. Such appointment further includes the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned school/collegiate/technical/medical education service. As already discussed above, the Petitioner held the post of Drawing Instructor from 2-6-1963 to 13-3-1974 in the Government Polytechnic and thereafter he opted for fresh direct appointment to the post of Asstt. Development Officer in another department i.e. Commerce and Industries Department. Even if his entire period in the Government Polytechnic is counted it comes to about 10 years and 9 months which is less than 20 years and it is not shown by the Petitioner that he was holding a lien on the post of Drawing Instructor. Thus, the Petitioner did not fulfil the requirement. 8. The other limb of the Petitioner's argument is that he was discharging duty of training the rural youth for self employment, designing, etc. and was imparting training to youth for establishment of rural industry, artisan industry and small scale industry in rural areas. Thus, the Petitioner did not fulfil the requirement. 8. The other limb of the Petitioner's argument is that he was discharging duty of training the rural youth for self employment, designing, etc. and was imparting training to youth for establishment of rural industry, artisan industry and small scale industry in rural areas. The Petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Director/General Manager in the Department of Commerce and Industries and by no stretch of imagination he could be treated as "teacher" merely because he also looked after the training programmes for imparting training to the youths for the purpose of self employment. What is necessary is that such teachings must take place in 'educational institutions' as contemplated in M. P. Government Servants (Superannuation) Act, 1967 as amended. Petitioner could not be treated as "teacher" with respect to the post of General Manager/Deputy Director Industries which he was holding. The requirement is that teaching should be in an educational institution and such teaching must be by a government servant appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educational institution. Merely imparting training in Industry cannot be said to be enough to make one 'teacher' as required under definition "teacher" in F.R. 56 as amended in M.P. In the present case, it is not satisfactorily established by the Petitioner with reference to service rules that his job was teaching. It is also not established that he was doing teaching in an "educational institution" and further he cannot be described as 'teacher' in view of the recruitment rules. 9. this Court in the case of Maina Swamy v. State of M. P., 1988 M.P.L.J. 196, considered the ambit of the definition "teacher" in F.R. 56. In the said case Maina Swamy, the Petitioner was working as Principal of "Lady Health Visitors Promotee School" which was an "educational institution". this Court held that by "education" as also by "training" latent faculties of a man are developed, whether or not, he is following an avocation. When a person who is educated is further "trained" in the same field his knowledge is thereby increased of the same subject which is also the purpose "Education". In the present case, the Petitioner was not appointed for the purpose of teaching and he was not giving such training in an educational institution. Hence decision of Maina Swamy (supra) has different field to operate. 10. In the present case, the Petitioner was not appointed for the purpose of teaching and he was not giving such training in an educational institution. Hence decision of Maina Swamy (supra) has different field to operate. 10. In the result, we find no substance in the submissions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.