Junaid Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 4283 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Junaid Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

                                                           1
                            IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                             ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 11194 of 2019

                           BETWEEN:-
                           JUNAID KHAN S/O SHRI ABDUL HAFEEZ KHAN H.NO
                           200, SOUTH MOTI NALA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                           (BY MS. KAUSHIKI SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES AND
                                 IRRIGATION MANTRALYA VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    THE CHIEF ENGINEER RANI AVANTI BAI LODHI
                                 PR OJECT BARGI HILLS JABALPUR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           3.    THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RANI AVANTI BAI
                                 LODHI   SAGAR LEFT BANK CANAL WATER
                                 RESOURCES DIVISION NO 2 KATANGA COLONY
                                 SUB DIVISION BARGI HILLS J AB ALPUR MP
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE NARMADA
                                 VALLEY     DEVELOPMENT A U T H O R I T Y RANI
                                 AVANTI BAI LODHI SAGAR LEFT BANK CANAL
                                 WATER RESOURCES DIVSION NO 2 KATANGA
                                 COLONY SUBDIVISION BARGI HILLS JABALPUR
                                 MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)

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

Petitioner's grievance is that petitioner who was working as a permanently classified Class-IV daily wager has been made to superannate on completion of age of 60 years whereas according to learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Kaushiki Sharma, petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years.

This issue is already decided by this court in W.P. No. 2873/2019 Balwant Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it is held that as per the provisions contained in Fundamental Rules 2 and 3, the provisions of Fundamental Rules are applicable only to those persons who are civil servants. The daily wager is not a Civil Servant and mere permanent classification is not a sufficient circumstance to treat them to be a civil servant. Therefore, once the

Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Ardhwarshiki Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 2018 being not applicable to the daily wagers, they are not entitled to claim benefit of enhanced age of superannuation in accordance with the Adhyadesh of 2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 13115/2019 decided on 3/08/2021.

This judgment is distinguishable on its own facts and that distinction continues because without answering the basic issue that whether a daily wager will fall within the definition of a civil servant so to reap the benefits of Adhyadesh of 2018, the said order was passed and that order being not applicable to the daily wagers will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, in as much as, the daily wagers are not the Government servants or the civil servants so to fall within the ambit of Fundamental Rule 56.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy