Madhusudan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 16417 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhusudan Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024

Author: Anand Pathak

Bench: Anand Pathak

                                     1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                               WP No. 1660 of 2024
          (MADHUSUDAN SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 31-05-2024
      Shri MPS Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Vineet Saxena -

Advocate for the petitioner.
      Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General and Shri M.S. Jadon -
Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

Heard on interim relief.

Present petition is preferred by the petitioner who is a Studio Instructor

in Government Fine Arts College and as per the contention of petitioner, he is imparting education. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner refers Service Recruitment Rules, Fundamental Rule 56 and Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs.Yugal Kishore Sharma, 2018(2) MPLJ 450 to submit that petitioner is entitled to get benefit of superannuation at the age of 65 years. He is teacher because he is imparting education to the students. Therefore, as per the guidelines of UGC he is entitled to be superannuated at the age of 65 years and not at the age of 62 years. On 31-05- 2024 (today) he is going to retire, therefore, interim relief be given.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Culture Department Subordinate (Directorate of Raj Bhasha Evam Sanskriti) Class -III (Ministerial and Non-Ministerial) Service Recruitment Rules, 1999 and therefore, service condition of petitioner is to be governed by the said statute of 1999. In UGC, post of Instructor does not fall under Teacher. Even otherwise UGC Regulations are not mandatory over the respondents/State in respect of service

conditions of present petitioner. Since the validity of relevant rules of 1999 has not been challenged, therefore, petitioner cannot be granted any benefit of superannuation at the age of 65 years. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. Vs. Seema Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 571. He prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

Considering the rival submission, it appears that matter is required to be heard extensively. Service condition of petitioner is guided by the Rules of 1999 and if petitioner is treated as Teacher borrowing the definition of Fundamental Rule 56, then in that condition all other Non-ministerial Employees governed by

the Rules of 1999 would also claim parity as Teacher whereas the said Rules 1999 does not categorise them as Teacher in specific term. Therefore, matter is to be heard extensively.

Respondents/State are directed to file detail reply if advised so, thus to crystallise the controversy. Needful be done within four weeks.

It is made clear that petitioner is not permitted to work but his prospects shall be subject to final outcome of this petition.

List the matter in the week commencing 15-07-2024.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE

Anil* ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2024.06.01 18:14:49 +05'30'