Rajkumari Bhatia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4558 MP

                                    1
 IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                      ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2023
                    WRIT PETITION No. 4072 of 2017

BETWEEN:-
RAJKUMARI BHATIA S/O LATE SHRI CHETU MAL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
BALABAI KA BAZAR, HAZHARNESS KA BADA LASHKAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....PETITIONER


AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY   VALLABH  BHAVAN   BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    ENGINEER   IN   CHIEF  PUBLIC   HEALTH
      ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.    CHIEF   ENGINEER     WATER   RESOURCE
      DEPARTMENT YAMUNA BASIN WRD THATIPUR
      MORAR DISTT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
      DEPARTM ENT HARSI DABRA DISTT GWALIOR
      MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS


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

Advocates are abstaining from work due to call given by M.P. State Bar Council. Petitioner is present in person.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been superannuated at the age of 60 years in terms of Rule 6 of M.P. Daily Wages (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2013.

Brief facts of the case in short are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Educated Labour as a daily wage employee in the year 1987 in the Water Resources Department. Thereafter, in May 2015, the petitioner was classified as semi-skilled daily wage employee, working on the post of Educated Labour. Even in the service record of the petitioner, her age of superannuation is marked for the year 2019, being a Class IV daily wage

employee, in spite of the same the respondent no.4 has passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 superannuating the petitioner at the age of 60 years, treating her as a Class III daily wage employee, which is against the record and contrary to law. The petitioner being a Class IV employee is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. Hence, the present petition is filed.

The petitioner who had appeared in person submitted that the case is squarely covered by the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20568/2018 on 17.06.2021 and since she had been superannuated only at the age of 60 years treating her as a Class III daily wage employee which was not correct as she was class IV employee and is entitled to continue up to the age of 62 years, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

On 14.03.2023, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties had directed the Government Advocate to verify as to whether the present case is covered by the aforesaid order or not, for which time was sought.

Due to abstaining of the counsel from work the aforesaid instructions could not be received and thus this Court itself went through the aforesaid

judgment passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20568/2018 on 17.06.2021 and found that the controversy is no more res integra. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to defer from the aforesaid findings. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed in the light of the order passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.20568/2018 on 17.06.2021.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.06.2017 passed by the respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been superannuated at the age of 60 years is hereby quashed. Since at present, the period of two years of her extension uptill 28.06.2019 has already expired, as the petitioner has completed age of 62 years in 2019, no direction of continuance in service for two years can be issued. The only direction now which could be issued would be with regard to monitory benefits which had accrued to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. Accordingly, respondents are directed to pay all the monitory benefits attached to the aforesaid period to the petitioner including increments, if any, also recalculate her pension and other monitory benefits given to her. The arrears of salary & other monitory benefits for the said period would carry 6% interest from the date of its accrual till the date of its realization.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2023.03.25 17:41:06 +05'30'