Anil Kumar Tandiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4716 MP

                                                          1                               WP-9052-2020
                               The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                          WP-9052-2020
                           (ANIL KUMAR TANDIYA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      4
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 26-08-2021
                             Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                  Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
                                     Shri Swapnil Neolekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent

no.1/State.

Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition making a prayer to issue directions to respondents to extend the age of retirement of petitioners, who are working as Meter Readers up to age of 62 years. It is submitted that respondents may be directed to extend the contract period of petitioners and engage them beyond the age of 50 years up to the age of 62 years.

2. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondents issued an advertisement in year 2004 and pursuant to said advertisement petitioners were selected to work on contract basis as Meter

Reader. Petitioners were asked to sign contract with respondents-Company by a letter of Executive Engineer M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Mandla dated 15.5.2005. It is submitted that earlier Meter Readers were allowed to continue in contract and contract was extended up to age of 40 years. Thereafter, respondents had framed policy dated 6.3.2012 for engaging educated unemployed workforce as Meter Reader for all classes of low tension consumers to electricity. Said Meter Readers have to work on contract. Policy framed by M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited was called as Meter Reader Policy 2012. As per said policy, age limit prescribed for Meter Readers was 18-50 years. It is submitted by counsel appearing for the petitioners that Meter Readers employed on regular

Signature Not basis with respondents/Company are permitted to continue up to age of 62 SAN Verified

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2021.08.31 13:11:07 IST 2 WP-9052-2020 years, therefore, petitioners may also be allowed to continue as Meter Reader on contract basis till attaining age of 62 years. Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on Madhya Pradesh Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Samvida Seva (Anuvandh Evam Seva Ki Sharten) Niyam, 2016. As per said policy, age of retirement of contract employee is 60 years. Said policy was modified on 31.3.2018, and by modifying policy, date of superannuation was

fixed to 60 years. It is submitted that petitioners may also be given benefit of said policy and they may be permitted to contract with respondents-employee till attaining the age of 62 years. Respondents are discriminating with petitioners-Meter Readers and they may also be given same benefit which is extended to other employees. In view of said submissions, counsel for the petitioners made a prayer for allowing writ petition and permitting petitioners to enter into a contract with respondents for extension of their work as Meter Reader till attaining the age of 62 years.

3. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that petitioners are Meter Readers and independent contractors. Petitioners does not have any employer-employee relationship with respondents. Petitioners are governed by Policy of 2012 and Rules of 2016 and 2018 relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to them. Said rules are applicable to contractual employees and petitioners are not contractual employees, but independent contractors. It is submitted that Indore Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.3.2018 passed in W.P.No. 8275/2012, directed the parties to place all documents before Industrial Tribunal including judgment delivered by this Court enabling Industrial Court to arrive at proper conclusion. With said direction, admission of case was declined. Thereafter, Industrial Tribunal, Indore vide award dated 20.8.2019 answered the reference that Meter Reader and bill distributors are working as independent contractors under personal agreement and are not performing work of permanent and regular nature. Learned counsel relying on said order passed in writ petition and order passed by Industrial Tribunal submitted that petitioners are Signature SAN Not Verified

Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2021.08.31 13:11:07 IST 3 WP-9052-2020 independent contractors. Thus, they cannot be given benefit to enter into contract with respondents till attaining the age of 62 years. It is further submitted that petitioners are not employees and they are independent contractors, therefore, writ petition may be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the respondents.

5. On going through the policy of Meter Readers framed in a year 2012 and order by which petitioners were directed to enter into contract with respondents dated 15.5.2005, it is clear that petitioners are being engaged on contract basis to do the work of Meter Readers. Respondents had outsource the work of Meter Reading to petitioners on contract basis. They are

independent contractors and not the employees of respondents. They are working outside the organization and entitled to privileges and benefits as per the conditions of contract. Rules of 2016 and 2018 are in respect of contract employees and petitioners are not employees, therefore, they cannot claim any benefit or advantage under said rules. Contract of petitioners is governed by conditions of contract entered between petitioners and respondents and policy framed in a year 2012. Petitioners have not challenged clause of policy which lays down minimum and maximum age of Meter Readers. In absence of challenge to policy of year 2012, petitioners will be governed by terms of the policy and contract entered between parties, therefore, they cannot claim and force respondents to enter into contract beyond the period of 50 years.

6. Resultantly, writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE

DUBEY/-

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2021.08.31
13:11:07 IST