Qji' v. SPOHDENIS

HIGH COURT W CHHATnSGARH: BII.ASPUR Division Bench Coram: Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ & Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J WRITPET!TjOfilN0.2360<:>F19SS PETmONER Narayan Prasad Verma Versus iyi".3!:i;i:^i~;E^ |;||^$l|^tls? 8ESPQNDENTS State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Present: Shri R.S. Patel, counsel for the paUtioner. Shri Sanj'ay S. Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for th®State. Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsel fcr respondent No.3. ORALORDER (Passed on 22ml Febroary, 2007) The following oral order of Uie Court was passsd H.L. Dattu, C.J. An employee woridng in a private aidededucattonal mstituBon has flled this writ peh'Uon under Article 226/227 of the ConsBtution sf India, InteraHa seeta'ng the following reliefe: "i) to quash the impugned ontor (Annexure P/4) dated 21/WIQ98. 'ii) to issue a direction to respondents to at low the petitiCTier to work in the c^>acity of Head Cteric-cum- officiating R^istrar".

2) The facts in brief are: The petitioner was appointed as Lower Dhrision Cterk in Duiga College, which is aided insUtutlon. He was promoted as Upper Dhnston Clerk. Subsequently he ateo worked as R^istrar In the said '^' Coltege from 1-1-1995 tiU he w@s reUred from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 3) Fundamental Rule 56 before tt was substituted by Orrtnamce No.1 ofl^SwasthesubjectmatterofBiepefiUonbeforettieKtadh^ Pradesh High Court. The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh hNgh Court after consideration of Rute 56 of the Fundannentd Rutes was pleased to observe that the Teachers and Class-IV employees are eligible and entiUed to continue in service till ttiey attam the age of 60 years and other employees will retire from service on attaffiing the age of 58 years. Admittedly, petitioner is a Class-111 employee. The respondents taking into account the judgment rendered by the jurisdfctional H^h Court and ftirther taWng into account ttie directions issued by the State Govemment has retired the petHioner on his attaining the age of 58 yeare by issuir^ Annexure-P/2 and P/4.

It is those orders which are subject matter of this writ petlh'on. 4) Learned counsiel appearing for the petiUoner vehenrently contends before this Court that the respondents were nrt ju^ifled in retiring the petitioner from service on his attaining the age of 58 yeare and according to him in view of the amended Rule 56 of Functemental Rules he should have continued in service tlll the age of 60 yeare. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders Annexure-P/2 and P/4 are arbitrary, illegal and in violation etc. In addMon to his submissions, leamed counsel sfrongly relies upon ttie ebswvations made by the Apex Court in the cases <rf M.P. Pradhan vs. Unton of lndia& Others (AIR 1990 SC 891), Miss Raj Sont vs. Air Officer in Charge Administration & Another (AIR 1990 SC 1308) and t- •3 U. Raghavendra Acharya & Others vs. State of Kamataha and Others (AIR 2006 SC 2145). 5) Per contra, leamed counsel appearing fbr ttre Stato Govemment jusUfies ttie Impugned orders.

The oitfy questien Vhat requires to be considered and decided and considered in Uiis peUtion is, whether the respondents were jusUfied in retiring the peUUoner from service on attaining the age of 58 years. 6) The respondents for retiring the petttloner from service have relied upon Uie dicta of the jurisdictional Htgh Court, wherein ft stated that tt is only the Teachere and Class-IV employees are eliglbte and entitled to continue the service flll they attain the age of 60 ^are and other employees require to be retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years. In order to overcome the observations made by the jurisdictional High Court and to gh/e some beneftt to the employees worta'ng in the State Government, the Govemment has issued an Ordinance No.1 of 1998.published in M.P. Rajyapatra (extraordlnaiy) dated 28-5-1^8 and the said ordinance is given effet from 31-5-

1998. Even before the said ordinance was introduced by substltufing Rule 56 of Fundamentel Rules, the petiUoner was retired from service on attaining the age of 58 yeare. The petlUoner cannot seek any benefit under the amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, and therefore, in our opinion, the respondents were justifi«tin reUring the petltioner on his attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by ttie respondents. •<- r~,'i -4- 7) The retiance ptaced by Vw leamed counsel for the petitionere on the observations made by the Apex Court would not assist him in any manner whatsoever. 8) For the aforesaid reasons, we are of ths opinlon that ttia wrif petition is devoid of merits and the same requires to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected. 9) In the facts and circumstances of ttie case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly^. ' Sd/- ChiefJustice -:':. . Sd/1- V.K.Shrivastava Judge r ii i rcS-^ B' »