Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 755 (MP)

Mrigank Mohan Mishra v. State of M. P.

2019-11-02

VIVEK RUSIA

body2019
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 5.11.2018 whereby the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Shajapur has retired him w.e.f. 31.12.2018 after attaining the age of 60 years. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (i) The petitioner was appointed as daily-wager against the post of Time-keeper on 1.4.1986. Vide order dated 16.1.2017, he was classified as permanent employee under the scheme of State Government issued vide Circular dated 7.10.2016. He was classified as “permanent employee (skilled)” in the fixed minimum pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-100-8000. (ii) The State Government vide Gazette Notification dated 31.3.2018 has enhanced the age of superannuation of Government employees from 60 to 62 years by amending the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1967. Vide letter dated 22.10.2018, the Executive Engineer, PHE sought clarification from the Superintending Engineer in respect of retirement of Class-III and IV permanent employees/daily-rated employees after attaining the age of 60 or 62 years. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 5.1.2018, petitioner has been retired from service, hence the present petition before this Court. 3. After notice, the respondents have filed the return by submitting that vide circular dated 3.5.2017, the General Administration Department (GAD) of the State Government has decided the age of superannuation of Class III and IV employees as 60 and 62 years respectively. Thereafter, vide letter dated 6.2.2018, the Engineer-in-chief Engineer, PHE has classified various posts of the department into Class III and IV categories for the purposes of retirement at the age of 60 and 62 years. Since the petitioner was engaged as Class III daily-rated employee, therefore, he has rightly been retired on attaining the age of 60 years, hence no interference is called for, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee. The apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray and others : (2017)3 SCC 436 , has held that the daily-rated employees classified as “permanent employee” would be entitled to pay-scale of permanent post from the dates specified in the award by the Labour Court, but the daily-rated employees appointed without following any selection procedure and their appointments were not against the regular vacancies, in normal circumstances, these persons, because of their long service and also on the assumption that they are discharging the same duties as discharged by the regular employees, can claim same salary which is being paid to regular employees holding similar posts on principles of “equal pay for equal work”. The “permanent employee” has right to receive pay in the graded pay scale, at the same time but he would be getting only minimum of the said pay scale with no increments. It is not the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale. 6. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment of apex Court, the GAD came up with the scheme of regularisation of daily-rated employee as permanent employee in three categories vide circular dated 7.10.2016. It is not the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments, etc. in the pay scale. 6. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment of apex Court, the GAD came up with the scheme of regularisation of daily-rated employee as permanent employee in three categories vide circular dated 7.10.2016. Circular dated 7.10.2016 is reproduced below: ^^e/;çns'k 'kklu lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;] Hkksiky Øekad ,Q 5&1@2013@1@3 Hkksiky] fnukad 7 vDVwcj] 2016 Áfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jktLo e.My] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr laHkkxh; vk;qDr] leLr dysDVj] leLr eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r] e/;Áns'kA fo"k; % dk;Zjr nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa ds fy, LFkk;h dfeZ;ksa dks fofu;fer djus dh ;kstukA jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu;ferhdj.k ls oafpr nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa ds laca/k esa fuEukuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS %& 1-1 bUgsa ^^nSfud osru Hkksxh** ds LFkku ij ^^LFkk;h dehZ** dh Js.kh nh tkosA 1-2 bUgsa fuEukuqlkj osrueku Lohd`r fd;k tkosA Js.kh osrueku 1 2 vdq'ky 4000&80&7000 v}Zdq'ky 4500&90&7500 dq'ky 5000&100&8000 1-3 ofj"Brk dk ykHk nsus gsrq 1 flrEcj] 2016 dh fLFkfr esa muds }kjk iw.kZ fd, o"kksZ ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr osrueku esa vafdr osruo`f} dh nj ls x.kuk dks mUgsa lacaf/kr osrueku esa osru fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkosxkA 1-4 bl ij bUgsa eagxkbZ HkRrk ns; gksxkA ¼orZeku 125 Áfr'kr½ 1-5 dksbZ ,fj;j ns; ugha gksxkA 1-6 ;g osru fu/kkZj.k 01 flrEcj] 2016 dh frfFk ls gksxkA vkxkeh osruo`f} flrEcj] 2017 ls ns; gksxhA 1-7 vf/kokf"kZdh vk;q iw.kZ gksus ij 15 fnu Áfro"kZ ds lsokdky ds osru ds vkèkkj ij miknku dh ik=rk gksxhA ;g jkf'k vdq'ky ds fy, :i;s 1]25]000@& vkSj v}Zdq'ky ds fy, :i;s 1]50]000@& ,oa dq'ky ds fy, :i;s 1]75]000@& rd lhfer gksxhA 1-8 ,sls nSfud osru Hkksxh tks fnukad 16 ebZ] 2007 dks dk;Zjr Fks o fnukad 1 flrEcj] 2016 dks Hkh dk;Zjr gS] bl osru Øe ,oa vU; ykHkksa ds fy, ik= gksaxsA fnukad 16 ebZ 2007 ds i'pkr 'kklu dh vuqefr@vuqeksnu mijkUr l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk nSfud osru Hkksxh ds in ij fu;qDr fd, x;s gSa mUgsa Hkh ;kstuk dh ik=rk gksxhA fnukad 1 flrEcj 2016 ds iwoZ lsokfuo`Rr@lsok ls i`Fkd fd;s x;s vFkok lsok NksM+ pqds nSfud osru Hkksfx;ksa dks bl ;kstuk dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA lafonk] va'kdkyhu ,oa vkmV lksflZx ds ek/;e ls fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, ;g ;kstuk ykxw ugha gSaA 2- prqFkZ Js.kh ds fjDr fu;fer inksa ij ÁkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr gsrq ,d ;kstuk cukbZ xbZ gS tks layXu ifjf'k"V&v ij gSA bl ;kstuk ds fØ;kUo;u gsrq e/;Áns'k dfu"B lsok ¼la;qDr vgZrk½ fu;e] 2013 ds fu;e&7 esa of.kZr lewg&6 esa prqFkZ Js.kh dh p;u ÁfØ;k dks ,d o"kZ ds fy, LFkfxr dh tkrh gSA 3- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa ftu nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkfj;ksa dks dfri; foHkkxksa }kjk vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s gSa mUgsa iwoZor j[kk tk,A ftu nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa Ádj.k nk;j fd;s x;s gSa mu nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkfj;ksa }kjk lacaf/kr U;k;ky;hu Ádj.k okfil fy;s tkus ij ÁLrkfor ;kstuk dk ykHk fn;k tk,A 4- fuekZ.k foHkkxksa ds vfrfjDr vU; ftu foHkkxksa esa nSfud Hkksxh Jfed dk;Zjr gSa] mUgsa orZeku esa Jek;qDr }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr U;wure etnwjh nh tkrh gSaA jkT; 'kklu ,d dY;k.kdkjh jkT; gksus dh vo/kkj.kk ij ml U;wure etnwjh ls csgrj etnwjh nsus ds fy, bl Js.kh ds nSfud osru Hkksxh Jfedksa dks Hkh LFkk;h dehZ dk inuke nsrs gq, ogh osrueku ,oa lqfo/kk,a ns; gksxh] tks muds led{k nSfud osru Hkksxh dh dafMdk 1-1 ls 1-8 ds v/khu fuekZ.k foHkkxksa ds LFkk;h dehZ dks ns; gksxhA rn~uqlkj lacaf/kr foHkkxksa }kjk dk;Zikfydk vkns'k tkjh fd, tk,A 5- e/;Áns'k nSfud osru Hkksxh deZpkjh ¼lsok dh 'krsZ½ fu;e] 2013 tks fd lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 309 ds vUrxZr tkjh fd;s x;s gSa dks fujLr fd;k tkdj fofHkUu fuekZ.k mijksDr dafMdk 1-1 ls 1-8 ds vuqlkj e/;Áns'k vkS|ksfxd fu;kstu ¼LFkk;h vkKk,½ vf/kfu;e 1961 o fu;e 1963 ds vUrxZr bu fuekZ.k foHkkxksa esa dk;Zjr Jfedksa dks vkS|ksfxd Jfed ekurs gq, vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk,saxs o lacaf/kr foHkkx vkS|ksfxd Jfed ekurs gq, vkns'k tkjh fd;s tk,saxs o lacafèkr foHkkx ds LFkk;h dfeZ;ksa dk fu;eu rn~uqlkj fd;k tk,A 6- d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk,A e/;Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] ¼,eŒdsŒ ok".ksZ;½ Áeq[k lfpo e/;Áns'k 'kklu lkekU; Á'kkluA** 7. In compliance of the aforesaid circular, vide order dated 16.1.2017, the petitioner has been classified as permanent skilled employee in the pay-scale of Rs. 5,000-100-8000-. In this order, it is not mentioned as to whether he was classified as Class III or Class IV employee. After the classification, the issue came before the Department as to whether what would be the age of retirement of daily-rated employees who have beeb classified as permanent employee. Vide circular dated 9.11.2012 the State Government has decided the age of superannuation of Class III employee to be 60 years and Class IV employees to be 62 years. It is important to mention here that there is no difference in the age of superannuation in case of regular Class III and Class IV employees of the State Government. Circular dated 9.11.2012 is reproduced below: ^^e/;Áns'k 'kklu lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiy&462004 Øekad lh 5&1@2012@1@3 Hkksiky] fnukad 9 uoEcj] 2012 Áfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx] v/;{k] jktLo e.My] eŒÁŒ Xokfy;j] leLr laHkkxk;qDr] leLr ftyk dysDVj] leLr eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] ftyk iapk;r] e/;Áns'k fo"k; % nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr O;fDr;ksa ls dke dh vf/kdre vk;q&lhek dk fu/kkZj.kA 1- jkT; 'kklu ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa esa dk;Z fo'ks"k ds laiknu gsrq le;≤ ij vko';drkuqlkj nSfud osru ij deZpkjh j[ks tkrs gSaA ,sls dk;ksZ dh fujarjrk ds vk/kkj ij ;s nSfud osruHkksxh deZpkjh yach vof/k rd dk;Z ij jgrs gSa] fdUrq buls vf/kdre fdl vk;q rd dk;Z fy;k tkuk gS] blds dksbZ Li"V funsZ'k ugha gSA 2- mijksDRk ifjÁs{; esa jkT; 'kklu }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh rFkk buds led{k inksa ij nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr O;fDr;ksa ls dke ysus dh vf/kdre vk;q&lhek Øe'k 60 ,oa 62 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr dh tk, vFkkZr jkT; 'kklu ds leLr foHkkxksa esa r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh rFkk buds led{k inksa ij nSfud osru ij fu;ksftr O;fDr;ksa ls vf/kdre Øe'k 60 ,oa 62 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ gksus rd gh dk;Z fy;k tk ldsxkA 3- mDr Áko/kku ;g vkns'k tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls ÁHkko'khy gksaxsA e/;Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼vkjŒdsŒ xtfHk;s½ mi&lfpo e/;Áns'k 'kklu] lkekU; Á'kklu foHkkxA** 8. While deciding the age of retirement of Class III and Class IV daily rated employees, no reasonable classification has been disclosed in the above circular. It is well established that the classification should be based on some qualities or characteristics of group of persons together. While deciding the age of retirement of Class III and Class IV daily rated employees, no reasonable classification has been disclosed in the above circular. It is well established that the classification should be based on some qualities or characteristics of group of persons together. Those qualities and characteristics must have a reasonable relation of the objection to be achieved. Vide above circular, a decision has been taken to have two different age of retirement for Class III and Class IV daily rated employees, whereas for regular Class III and Class IV employees, there is no difference in the age of retirement. Therefore, in this circular, there is no basis behind classification of two different age of retirement of Class III and Class IV daily rated employees. However, circular dated 9.11.2012 was issued prior to framing of scheme of classification of daily rated employees vide circular dated 7.10.2016. In circular dated 7.10.2016, the age of superannuation of daily-rated employees who have been classified as “permanent employee” has not been decided. Even, circular dated 9.11.2012 has not been adopted. However, lateron the State Government came up with the new circular dated 3.5.2017 in which the age of retirement of Class III and Class IV daily rated employees is 60 and 62 years respectively based on the circular dated 9.11.2012. Once the apex Court has held that all the dailyrated employees are entitled for classification as permanent employee and in the light of the said judgment, the State Government has issued the circular dated 7.10.2016 to classify the daily-rated employees as permanent employees and they have been classified only as unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled. There is no category like Class III and Class IV permanent employee in the circular dated 7.10.2016,therefore, there is no basis to have two different age of retirement for Class III and Class IV dailyrated employee who have been classified as permanent employee. When the pay-scales are common for all the daily-rated employee who have been classified as permanent employee, then there should be common age of retirement i.e. 62 years for all of them. In the case of the present petitioner, vide order dated 16.1.2017, he has only been classified permanent employee as Timekeeper without specifying to be class III or IV. When the pay-scales are common for all the daily-rated employee who have been classified as permanent employee, then there should be common age of retirement i.e. 62 years for all of them. In the case of the present petitioner, vide order dated 16.1.2017, he has only been classified permanent employee as Timekeeper without specifying to be class III or IV. When there is no difference in age of retirement for the regular Class III and Class IV employees, then there should not be two different age of superannuation for classified permanent employees. Hence, the petitioner is liable to continue up to the age of 62 years. 9. Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 5.1.2018 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service up to 62 years of his age. No order as to costs. .............