Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 85 (MP)

Jodha Ram v. State of M. P.

2010-01-20

P.K.JAISWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a class IV permanent employee of the respondents and as per notification issued by the State Government he is entitled to serve till he complete the age of 62 years. In respect of the said contention he drew my attention to the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 1409/09 decided on 31.12.2009 in the matter of Gorelal Singh v. State of M.P. which reads as under: 31.12.2009. Shri Arvind Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned by. Advocate General for Respondents/State of M.P. on advance notice. Grievance put forth by the petitioner in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 8.12.2009 whereby the petitioner, Chowkidar, on daily wages, is made to retire on attaining the age of 60 years. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though on daily wages, the petitioner is entitled to serve till he completes the age of 62 years and the issue in respect of status of even a casual labour working on daily wages qua class IV employees of the State Govt, has been set at rest by Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Muthiya and others v. State of M.P. and others (2006) 1 MPHT 379 . It is further contended that this Court in the matter of daily wage worker in the Water Resources Department has extended the benefit of extended age of retirement in the case of Jagdish Prasad Shukla v. State of M.P and others W.P. No. 9171/2009 (5) decided on 16.9.2009. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Shukla (supra), this Court while taking note of submissions of Respondents/State and the fact that the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rewa has issued a letter dated 13.2.2009 whereby the age of retirement of daily wage workers was treated to be 62 years directed the respondents to allow the said petitioner to work till he attains the age of 62 years. The learned Deputy Advocate General does not dispute the fact that the issue as is raised in the present petition is no more res Integra. The learned Deputy Advocate General does not dispute the fact that the issue as is raised in the present petition is no more res Integra. It is submitted by him that the Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Muthia (supra) has extended the age of superannuation of the gangmen and those working in the work charged establishment to that of 62 years. Keeping in view of the above submissions and taking note of the judgments rendered in the cases of Vishnu Muthiya (supra) and Jagdish Prasad Shukla (supra), the petition is allowed. The order dated 8.12.2009 whereby the petitioner is directed to retire at the age of 60 years is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of extended age of retirement i.e. 62 years to the petitioner. The petition is allowed to that extent. No order as to costs. (Sanjay Yadav) Vacation Judge 2. For the reasons assigned therein the impugned order dated 13.8.2009 Annexure P/1, whereby the petitioner was directed to retire at the age of 60 years is hereby quashed. 3. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of extended age of 62 years to the petitioner. 4. The petition is allowed to that extent. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.