Omprakash Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5576 MP

                                1
     IN   THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   AT JABALPUR
                           BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                     ON THE 5 th OF APRIL, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 23108 of 2018

BETWEEN:-
OMPRAKASH SONI S/O SHRI GOPUL PRASAD SONI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LECTURER,
PRINTING      TECHNOLOGY        KALANIKETAN
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE JABALPUR, R/O H. NO. 837
SAMIKSHA TOWN, PHASE 03, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU
WARD JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH).

                                                           .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
      TEHCNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL AND
      DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND MAN
      POWER   PLANNING   DEPARTMENT SATPURA
      BHWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    DEPUTY SECRETARY, STATE OF MADYA
      PRADESH, TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL
      DEVELOPMENT        AND     EMPLOYMENT
      D EPARTM EN T, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    PRINCIPAL   KALANIKETAN    POLYTECHNIC
      COLLEGE JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARTI DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     2
                                     ORDER

By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to be retired w.e.f. 31.07.2019 on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. at the age of 62 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Fundamental Rule 56 read with the provision of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Aayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 the petitioner is entitled to be retired on attaining the age of 65 years and he cannot be retired at the age of 62 years. Counsel submits that claim of the petitioner claiming age of

superannuation 65 years is equally covered by the order passed by this Court in WP No. 2959/2018-Praveen Chandra Choubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others decided on 28.06.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by this Court in the case of Praveen Chandra Choubey (supra) was assailed by the respondents/State in writ appeal i.e. WA No. 1854/2018 and the said writ appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 19.11.2019. Thereafter, the respondents/State further assailed the order passed in the writ appeal before the Supreme Court and by order dated 25.09.2020 the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition i.e. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 10360/2020 preferred by the State affirming the order passed by this Court. The order passed by the Supreme Court is filed by the petitioner alongwith application for urgent hearing as Annexure D/1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this view of the matter, the present petition deserves to be allowed in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Praveen Chandra Choubey (supra) and accordingly

the petitioner is also entitled to be retired on attaining the age of 65 years.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the reply submitted by the respondents and also the orders passed by this Court, the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court in the matter, this petition is allowed. The order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P/5) is set aside.

The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner treating him to be retired at the age of 65 years. The respondents shall also grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner treating him to be in service till the age of 65 years ignoring the fact that he was prematurely retired at the age of 62 years. It is also apt to observe here that in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Sohane vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 796 and followed by this Court in number of cases, the respondents shall also grant the benefit of intervening period to the petitioner treating him to be in service. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from submitting copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE RAGHVENDRA

RAGHVENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA 2023.04.06 12:33:15 +05'30'