Gajraj Singh Ghoshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5983 MP

                                         1




            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                             W.P.No.4827 of 2017
                (Gajraj Singh Ghoshi Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.)

Jabalpur, Dated :24.09.2021


       Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

       Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.03.2017

passed by respondent no.3 whereby, it has been directed to clerk employed in a

government institution will retire at attaining the age of 60 years. The order

dated 24.03.2017 is further put to challenge which is consequential to the order

dated 10.03.2017 wherein, it is informed that as per the records, the date of

birth of the petitioner is 23.05.1957 hence, he was directed to retire on

31.05.2017 on attaining the age of 60 years.

It is submitted that the age of retirement of ministerial staff in

Government Department is 60 years. However, the State Government taking a

conscious decision to retire an employee of private government institution on

attaining the age of 62 years. In view of the fact that these employees does not

receive pension like that of government servants, to this effect a circular has

been issued by the government dated 19.12.1974. The benefit of the aforesaid

circular has been extended to the employees of the government aged institution

and they retired on attaining the age of 62 years.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this

Court an order passed in the case of Ajeet Prasad Vs. State of M.P. & others

passed in W.P.No.4701/2017 wherein aforesaid controversy has been put to

rest by order dated 21.08.2018. He has further brought to the notice of this court

another order dated 13.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.5368/2017 in the case of Smt.

Rajni Sawarkar Vs. The State of M.P. & Others wherein placing reliance

upon the case of Ajeet Prasad (supra). The matter was finally decided in

favour of the petitioner.

It is submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid

judgments therefore, it has been prayed that the same relief be extended to the

petitioner. It is further pointed out that he is placing reliance upon the circular

of the government and also the judgment passed by this court in similarly

situated employees have been extended the benefits but the petitioner has not

been extended the benefit.

In such circumstances, it is prayed that authorities be directed to consider

and decide the claim of the petitioner in view of the law laid down in the cases

of Ajeet Prasad (supra) and Smt. Rajni Sawarkar (supra).

Counsel appearing for the State by filing return as though refuted the

aforesaid contentions but he could not dispute the fact that the judgment which

has been passed by this court covers the controversy. It is submitted that the

matter has to be scrutinized in view of the judgment because in return they have

denied all the contentions placing reliance upon the Rules i.e. Madhya Pradesh

Ashaskiya Shiksharn Sanstha Adhiniyam, 1978 wherein it has been

categorically mentioned that the employees of aged institutions are not entitled

to the benefits as claimed by the petitioner. He has further relied upon an order

passed by the District Education Officer dated 10.03.2017 to the effect that in

the aged institutions, the rule of the government are being followed and as per

the fundamental Rules 56 and also the sub Rule 2 of the Rules, the age of

superannuation of clerical staff as well as librarian is 60 years and that of

teachers is 62 years.

In such circumstances, it was contented that no relief can be extended to

the petitioner. However, he submits that a detailed representation is filed, the

authorities will re-examine the matter of the petitioner and pass an order on

representation considering the judgment passed in the case of Ajeet Prasad

(supra). Prayer appears to be reasonable, in such circumstances, this petition is

disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to file a fresh detailed

representation along with all the relevant documents to respondent no.3 and in

case such a representation is filed, respondent no.3 is directed to dwell upon the

same considering the judgment passed in the cases of Ajeet Prasad (supra)

and Smt. Rajni Sawarkar (supra) and pass a self contained speaking order

and communicate the out come to the petitioner within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The authorities are

further expected to consider the aspect that the identically placed employees

have already been extended the benefits.

Needless to mention that this court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of with no

order as to the cost.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge

Sha Digitally signed by SMT SHALINI SINGH LANDGE Date: 2021.09.25 12:06:07 +05'30'