Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 366 (MP)

Suresh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2025-06-24

MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

body2025
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : "7.1 That, the respondent kindly directed not to retire the petitioner on completion the age of 60 years of services. 7.2 That, the respondent kindly further directed to permit petitioner in the department up to the age of 62 years i.e. up to month of July 2018. 7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered." 2. Draped with brevity, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present controversy in nutshell are that the husband of the petitioner was engaged in the respondent/department as a Daily Wager on 1.1.1984 to the post of Telephone Attendant. The date of birth of the husband of the petitioner is 7.7.1956 and treating him to be a Class III employee, his year of retirement was shown to be 2016. According to the petitioner, the post of Telephone Attendant is a Class IV post and as per rule 6 of Madhya Pradesh Daily Wages Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013 , the employees, who are working against Class IV or equivalent posts shall be superannuated on completion of 62 years of age, but the respondent/department had shown its intention to retire the husband of the petitioner prematurely at the age of 60 years, therefore, the present petition has been filed by her husband. 3. Shri MPS Rghuwanshi - learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Mohammad Amir Khan - Advocate for the petitioner has argued that the State Government vide Gazette Notification dated 31.3.2018 has enhanced the age of superannuation of Government employees from 60 years to 62 years by amending the M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Aayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, therefore, the petitioner, who is performing the same duties as that of Government employee, is entitled to get all the consequential benefits upto the age of 62 years and the act of the respondents of retiring him at the age of 60 years is arbitrary and contrary to law. 4. 4. While placing reliance on para 6 of the order dated 8.3.2022 passed by the Division Bench in the matter State of M.P. & Others v. Ravindra Singh Solanki vide Writ Appeal No.1533 of 2019, learned Senior Counsel has argued that Government of Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department had issued an order dated 19.12.2019 whereby a decision has been taken to increase the age of superannuation for Class-III employees as well as for all daily wagers/permanent employees and their age of superannuation has been mentioned as 62 years. 5. Further while referring to the Schedule appended alongwith the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, learned Senior Counsel has further argued that in the Public Health Engineering Department, the Telephone Attendant is stated to be Class IV Staff, thus, can be inferred therefrom that the post of Telephone Attendant on which husband of the petitioner was working was a Class IV post and therefore, as per rule 6 of Rules of 2013, his age of superannuation would be 62 years and not 60 years. 6. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the State Government on 7.10.2016 has come up with a Policy, in which all the daily rated employees have been directed to be classified as permanent employees and be paid the minimum pay-scale under different Cadres i.e. unskilled, semiskilled and skilled, therefore, by conscious decision categories like Class-III and Class-IV permanent employees have been obliterated, thus, no logic exists to differentiate between two set of employees on the basis of Class-III and Class-IV daily rated employees, because no such class exists by the effect of said Circular, and when the pay scale/emoluments are at par in respect of all daily rated employees, then there should be a common age of superannuation for all of them, in sum and substance, two age of superannuation cannot be construed in respect of employees kept in same category of classification only on the basis of their skills and not otherwise. To bolster his arguments, reliance was placed on the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Megh Singh Narwariya v. State of M.P. (Writ Petition No.1035 of 2019). 7. On the basis of the arguments, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order impugned herein be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Govt. 7. On the basis of the arguments, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order impugned herein be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State, while referring to the decisions of this Court in the matters of Munna Lal Rajak v. State of M.P. (Writ Appeal No.1326 of 2019, dated 16.8.2019); State of M.P. & Others v. Ram Kumar Shrivastava (Review Petition No.1075 of 2021) and Sitamber Singh Baghel v. State of M.P. & Others (Writ Petition No.21483 of 2019, dated 4.12.2019), has argued that as per rule 6 of the Rules of 2013, such daily wage employees, who are working against Class III or equivalent posts, would be superannuated on completion of 60 years of age and the employees, who are working against Class IV or equivalent posts shall be superannuated on completion of 62 years of age and as the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Telephone Attendant which is a Class III post, could only had been continued in service upto the age of 60 years and therefore had no right to continue upto 62 years of age. It was thus submitted that in view of the Rules of 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed and the present petition being bereft of merit and substance be dismissed. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The only consideration for determination in the present petition appears to be as to whether husband of the petitioner was either a Class-III or Class-IV employee and answer to the aforesaid question shall determine his age of retirement. 11. In the aforesaid context, if rule 6 of the Rules of 2013 is seen, it could be gathered that for the daily wagers who are working against Class III posts, shall retire at the age of 60 years and the employees, who are working against Class IV posts shall retire at the age of 62 years. The husband of the petitioner admittedly was working as Telephone Attendant with the Water Resources Department. In the Schedule appended alongwith the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the post of Telephone Attendant, so far as it concerns the PHE department, is mentioned as Class IV Staff. 12. The husband of the petitioner admittedly was working as Telephone Attendant with the Water Resources Department. In the Schedule appended alongwith the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, the post of Telephone Attendant, so far as it concerns the PHE department, is mentioned as Class IV Staff. 12. In the Circular dated 15.1.2023 issued by the Water Resources Department, Bhopal, Engineer-in-Chief to various Chief Engineers, it has been mentioned that since there is no classification of the daily wage employees as Class III and Class IV, then as per the Scheduled appended to the Circular, the posts can be reckoned whether it is belonging to Class III or Class IV posts but in the said Schedule, there is no mention of the post like Telephone Attendant except in Class IV category, the posts like Attender, Filter Attendent, Family Plainning Attendent and other Attendants have been mentioned. If the said Circular issued by the department is read in juxtaposition with the Schedule appended alongwith the Rules of 1966 wherein the employees working as Telephone Attendant in the Public Health Engineering Department had been kept in Class IV post category, it can be said that the post of Telephone Attendant is a Class IV category post. 13. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the act of the respondents in retiring the husband of the petitioner at the age of 60 years was per se illegal and as it has been held above that the husband of the petitioner was working on a Class IV post in the light of the Rule 6 of the Rules of 2013, he shall be entitled to continue in service till 62 years of age. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay salary for the period of two years from the date on which husband of the petitioner was retired within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14. The judgments cited by the learned Govt. Advocate nowhere holds that a Telephone Attendant is a Class III post and as they pertain to other posts are not applicable to the present matter. 15. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.