Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 667 (MP)

Rashid Ahmed v. State of M. P.

2019-09-17

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to continue him upto the age of 62 years instead of retiring him at the age of 60 years. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that another employee who was similarly situated working in the same department being Kamod Singh had filed WP No.13831/2018 which has been allowed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 6.10.2018 permitting him to continue upto the age of 62 years. 4. This aspect is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents. 5. The co-ordinate bench in the matter of Kamod Singh (supra) had passed the following order : "Parties through their counsel. Reply is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 17.4.2018 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 7837/2017 in respect of an employee of the same department. The judgment delivered by this Court dated 17.4.2018 reads as under : "Petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by order issued by the respondent-department retiring them after completion of 60 years of age. According to the petitioners they all are daily rated employees working against various posts equivalent to ClassIV posts and that they all are being paid wages of daily rated employees irrespective of their designation, therefore, they are entitled to work up to the age of 62 years. While issuing notice in the writ petitions, this Court has stayed the order of retirement and directed to maintain status quo in respect of their service conditions. After notice, respondents have filed the return by submitting that the petitioners have rightly been retired in the light of order dated 3.5.2017 as the GAD has directed all the Head of the Departments to retire the daily rated employees who are working equivalent to the post of regular Class-III and Class- IV employees at the age of 60 and 62 years, respectively, as the case may be. Undisputedly, all the petitioners were appointed as Class- IV employees in the Water Resources Department. Respondents are taking work from them against different regular posts but they are being paid wages as per Collector rate, revised from time to time. The petitioners are working on various posts which are Class- IV posts under the work charged contingency paid establishment. Undisputedly, all the petitioners were appointed as Class- IV employees in the Water Resources Department. Respondents are taking work from them against different regular posts but they are being paid wages as per Collector rate, revised from time to time. The petitioners are working on various posts which are Class- IV posts under the work charged contingency paid establishment. Services of the petitioner are governed under the provisions of e/;izns'k nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ¼lsok dh 'krsZa½ fu;e 2013. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramji Prajapati v. The State of M.P. (W.A. No. 308/2016 decided on 3rd April, 2017) has held : "It thus appears that though the appellant has been given the title of Supervisor but he is being paid less than the wages payable to daily wager. Merely because he has been given title of Supervisor will not make him Supervisor as he is getting salary less than that of a daily wager. Since the appellant is working on a post which is equivalent to Class-IV, therefore, the age of superannuation of appellant would be 62 years in terms of rule 6 of the rules of M.P. Daily Wager Employees (Condition of Service) rules, 2013." The State Government has come up with policy dated 7.10.2016 in which all the daily rated employees have been directed to be classified as permanent employees and paid the minimum payscale under different cadres i.e. unskilled, semiskilled and skilled. By the said circular the State Government has withdrawn the M.P. Daily Wage Employee (Conditions of Service) rules, 2013 and treated all the daily wagers as 'workmen' under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) rules, 1963. Even otherwise, vide notification dated 31.03.2018, the State Government has amended the e/;izns'k 'kkldh; lsod ¼vfèkokf"kZdh vk;q½ vf/kfu;e] 1967 has substituted the word "62 years" in place of "60 years". The said notification has been given effect with effect from 31.3.2018 and retirement age of the Class-I to Class-III employees has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Though the aforesaid notification is having prospective effect but in the present case, the petitioners are continuing into services by virtue of interim order passed by this Court. The said notification has been given effect with effect from 31.3.2018 and retirement age of the Class-I to Class-III employees has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Though the aforesaid notification is having prospective effect but in the present case, the petitioners are continuing into services by virtue of interim order passed by this Court. They are going to complete two years of service, after attaining the age of 62 years, hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances in totality, the impugned orders are hereby set aside and the petitioners are held to be entitled to work up to the age of 62 years. The petitions are allowed in above terms. All pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of the connected writ petitions. In the light of the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition also stands allowed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner upto the age of 62 years. The petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits. The Writ Petition is allowed." 6. Having regard to the aforesaid, since the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing, the present writ petition is also disposed of by holding that the directions issued in the case of Kamod Singh (supra) will apply mutatis mutandis in the case of the present petitioner also.