Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Prema vs Secretary The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 18 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 5513 of 2011
BETWEEN:-
SMT.PREMA W/O VASANT RATNAPARKHE, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. 22,GANESHPURI
COLONY,KHAJRANA,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YASHPAL RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
GOVT. PUB.HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE
DEPT,VALLABH BHAWAN,BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES SATPURA
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. COMMISSIONER HEALTH SERVICES BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. CHIEF MEDICAL & HEALTH OFFICER INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI BHUWAN DESHMUKH - G.A)
Th is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by
respondent No.4 retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 62 years whereas
the petitioner is entitled to be superannuated at the age of 65 years as per order
dated 31.10.2009 issued by respondent No.2 and clarified by respondent No.3
by order dated 26.11.2009.
2. According to the petitioner, she was working on the post of Lady
District Public Health Nursing Officer. The petitioner was being retired from
the said post on completion of age of superannuation of 60 years. The
petitioner filed a writ petition WP No.2666/2009(s) before this Court challenging
the order dated 19.8.2008 of retiring the petitioner on attaining the age of 60
years. The petitioner claimed that petitioner is performing a teaching job and is
governed by M.P. Shashkiya Sevak Adhivarshi Ayu Adhiniyam, 1967 and as
such the age of superannuation in her case is to be treated as 62 years. It was
further contended that the issue involved in the petition is covered by the
judgment in the case of Ms. D. Avra Vs. State WP No.2744/2008(s) decided
on 9.01.2009.
3. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the judgment passed in
the case of Ms.D.Avra (supra) the petition was allowed and it was directed that
the petitioner will be retired on attaining the age of 62 years.
4. Counsel for State raises objection that the petitioner has taken a
different stand from earlier petition that the petitioner is belonging to nursing
cadre and is entitled to continue upto the age of superannuation of 65 years.
5. The aforesaid contention is contrary to the stand taken in the earlier
petition WP No.2666/2009(s). In the said petition, the petitioner has contended
that the petitioner belongs to Sister Teacher and in compliance to the order
passed by this court the petitioner was retired from service on completion of
age of 62 years. Now the petitioner has filed a petition claiming that the
petitioner belongs to nursing cadre and entitled for continuation of 65 years.
6. After hearing learned counsel for parties and considering the order
passed by this Court in WP No.2666/2009(s) dated 27.4.2009 wherein the
petitioner has contended that the petitioner belongs to teaching job and was
allowed to continue upto the age of 62 years instead of 60 years now the
petitioner cannot take a different stand that petitioner belongs to nursing cadre
and not teaching cadre.
7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the order
retiring the petitioner on completion of age of 62 years treating to be in teaching
cadre. The age of superannuation was enhanced upto 65 years for nursing
cadre and not for teaching cadre.
8. In view of aforesaid, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
