Lalji Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13383 MP

                                                             1
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
                                                   ON THE 12th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                               WRIT PETITION No. 6977 of 2015

                                   BETWEEN:-
                                   LALJI SHARMA S/O CHANDRIKA PRASAD
                                   OJHA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                   RETIRED LAB TECHNICIAN VILLAGE SADAHNA
                                   TAHSIL SIRMOUR REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                                   (BY SHRI K.K. PANDEY WITH SHIR RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI,
                                   ADVOCATE )

                                   AND
                           1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                   HIGHER       EDUCATION    DEPARTMENT
                                   MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      COMMISSIONER/DIRECOTOR        HIGHER
                                   EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SATPUDA BHAVAN,
                                   BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.      PRINCIPAL YAMUNA PRASAD SHASHTRI
                                   COLLEGE SIRMOUR DISTT. REWA (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                           4.      PRESIDENT SHIKSHA SAMITI YAMUNA PRASAD
                                   SHASHTRI COLLEGE SIRMOUR DISTT. REWA
                                   (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                                   (BY SHRI SUBODH KATHAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

                                 Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for a direction to the respondents to hold that the age of superannuation of the petitioner is 62 years Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/14/2022 3:24:41 PM

and accordingly, the respondents be directed to provide the benefit and salary of emoluments while treating the petitioner to be in service till attaining the age of 62 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein was working as Lab Technician with the respondent No.3/Collage, which functions under the administrative control of a Society. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a circular has been issued by Department of Higher Education dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3) by which it is unequivocally declared that even the employees working against the post of Lab Technician in a non- government College shall also be entitled for superannuation upon attaining the

age of 62 years. Counsel further contends that on the strength of said circular dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3), even the Principal of college vide its communication dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/4) has sought clarification from the Commissioner, Higher Education as to whether the petitioner, who while working as Lab Technician was superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years, is entitled to continue in service till attaining the age of 62 years. However, no decision thereon was taken by the Commissioner, Higher Education. Thus, counsel for the petitioner contends that in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Jacob Thudipara vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2974/2022 on 21.04.2022, the petitioner is entitled to be superannuated upon attaining the age of 62 years and the respondents be directed to confer all benefit to the petitioner while treating his age of superannuation to be 62 years.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition suffers from delay and laches inasmuch as, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure P/1) whereas the petition was filed in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/14/2022 3:24:41 PM

year of 2015 and the petitioner has not explained this delay of two years in the petition. Counsel further submits that the circular in question is not applicable to the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner was not a government servant. On the contrary, he was engaged by a private aided institution and therefore, the claim which is based on the circular dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3) is misconceived and therefore, no interference is warranted in the petition.

Having heard rival submissions of both the parties and upon perusing the record it appears that vide impugned order dated 30.09.2013 (Annexure P/1), the petitioner upon attaining the age of 60 years was superannuated on 30.09.2015 (Annexure P/1). It is also gathered from perusal of the record that there is a circular by the Commissioner Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3) which refers to an earlier order dated 01.01.2000 (Annexure P/7) which provides that the teaching as well as non-teaching staff of the private aided institution shall be entitled to be superannuated upon attaining the age of 62 years and therefore, while maintaining parity, the directives were issued to the Principals as well as Education Officers, District Rewa to extend the benefit of superannuation of 62 years to the employees engaged as Lab Technician. Thereafter, communication dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/4) also reflects that the Principal had approached the Commissioner, Higher Education and sought clarification as to whether the

petitioner herein who was working as Lab Technician is entitled to be superannuated upon attaining the age of 62 years in terms of circular dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3) or not ? However, there is no response by the Commissioner Higher Education and communication dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/4) has not been dealt with by the respondents in their return. The

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/14/2022 3:24:41 PM

return is silent as regards the decision if any, by the Commissioner Higher Education on communication dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/4).

Thus, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, this Court deem it proper to dispose of the petition with direction to Commissioner Higher Education to take a decision in terms of circular dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P/3) as well as communication dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/4).

The respondent No.2 is directed to take a decision on the communication dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure P/4) in the light of circular dated 27.01.2015 (Annexrue P/3) within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today.

If it is ultimately held that the age of superannuation of the petitioner is 62 years, all consequential benefits while treating the age of superannuation of the petitioner to be 62 years, shall be conferred to the petitioner within a further period of 60 days.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.

(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE sp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL Signing time: 10/14/2022 3:24:41 PM