Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 540 (MP)

V. M. Garg v. State of M. P.

2008-04-06

DIPAK MISRA

body2008
ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 16.6.2003 contained in Annexure P-l. It is urged in the petition that he was entitled to be superannuated at the age of 62 years, but the authority has in an erroneous manner, retired him at the age of 60 years. It is averred in the writ petition that he is a Sports Teacher and is engaged in imparting Physical Training and, therefore, he is entitled to retire at the age of 62 years. As per the provision contained in section 2 (1) (a) of M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (AdhivarshkiyaAayu) Dwitiya Samshodhan Adhiniyam, 1998 the term 'teacher' has been defined as follows: "Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule 'Teacher' means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching a Government Education Institution, in accordance with the rectuitment 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." 2. This Court had the occasion to analyse the said provision in the case of Chokhelal Sahu v. State of M.P. [ 2003 (4) MPLJ 288 ]. In the said case placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of PS. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P. Agricultural University [ AIR 1997 SC 3433 ] expressed the view in Paragraph 6 as under: "In view of the wide phraseology in the definition of 'teacher' givenl in the Explanation to section 2 (I-a) of the Act, and in view of the nature of duties of a Physical Training Instructor (Sports Officer) given in the decision of the Supreme Court referred above it must be held that the Sports Officer in M.P. also comes within the definition of teacher. It is well settled that executive order of the Government such as order dated 29.5.2001 (Annexure R-l) cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions in the Act or the legislation. As the Sports Officer is covered under the definition of 'teacher' given in this Act he would also be entitled to the benefit of the age of superannuation raised from 60 to 62 years. As the Sports Officer is covered under the definition of 'teacher' given in this Act he would also be entitled to the benefit of the age of superannuation raised from 60 to 62 years. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 27.5.2000 (Annexure R-l) of the respondent No.1 must be quashed. It is not in dispute that the rules applicable to Government teacher also apply to teachers of aided College." 3. Mr. Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner is clearly covered by the aforesaid decision. That apart, it is contended by Mr. Verma that similarly placed persons have retired on attaining the age of 62 years, but dissimilar and discriminatory treatment has been shown to the petitioner. Mr. S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, has referred to clarification which defines 'teacher'. I am of the considered view that the submission advanced by the State is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the order passed vide Annexure P-l is quahsed and the petitioner is permitted to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation that is 62 years. 4, Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.