[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sudama Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62227
1 WP-8507-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 1 st OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 8507 of 2015
SMT. SUDAMA THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Dixit - Senior Advocate with Shri Anshul Dixit
- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Singh - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner challenging the order dated
26.09.2014 (Annexure P/4) by which a list of employees including the
petitioner who are going to be retired within 2 years has been issued. The
petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure P/8) by
which District Program Officer has been instructed to intimate the petitioner
about her retirement upon attaining the age of 60 years.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner is disputing the orders passed by the respondent by which the
petitioner was superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years whereas, the
petitioner, in the capacity of Balbadi Shikshika was required to perform her
duties till attaining the age of 62 years. It is contended by learned senior
counsel that the matter now stands in a narrow compass inasmuch as the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62227
2 WP-8507-2015
petitioner was imparting duties of Teacher which is evident from Annexure
P/2 and the nature of duties have not been disputed by the respondent.
Therefore, in the light of law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Mana Swamy v. State of M.P. reported in 1988 MPLJ 190 as well
as decision of Single Bench in the case of Chokhelal Sahu v. State of M.P.
and others in W.P. No.5098/2000 , the petitioner was entitled to continue till
attaining the age of 62 years in the employment. Counsel has also placed
reliance on another order dated 10.02.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.
No.4597/2003 (Smt. C.K. Chhadda vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others)
and also on a decision of erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal in T.A.
No.4063/1988 in the case of P.S. Khare and others v. State of M.P. and
others.
3. Counsel for the State contended that the petitioner was required to
demonstrate that she had performed the duties in the capacity of Teacher.
Unless and until the petitioner was able to demonstrate that she performed
her duties in the capacity of Teacher, she was not entitled to continue in
employment till the age of 62 years and therefore, the reliance on the
decisions is misplaced.
4. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
5. A perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner was employed as
Balbadi Shikshika in Aganwadi Kendra/Nari Niketan. One of the similarly
situated employee i.e. Smt. C.K. Chadda, who was working as Craft
Inspector approached this Court in W.P. No.4597/2003 and this Court vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62227
3 WP-8507-2015
order dated 10.02.2011 observed that duties of Craft Inspector is to instruct
and teach the students in the Nari Niketan various crafts and to acquaint
them with technical skill of Craftsmanship and accordingly, while placing
the reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Mana Swamy (supra) held that the petitioner therein was entitled to continue
till the age of 62 years.
6. Another controversy came up for consideration before the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Yugal Kishore
Sharma reported in 2018 (2) MPLJ 450 (FB) , wherein this Court held in
paragraph 42 and 43 as under:
"42. In respect of the second question, it is held that the
Training Centres and the Vocational Training Centres
of the State Government are Educational Institutions for
extending the benefit of age of superannuation to a
person imparting training as the Instructor is a Teacher
for the purpose of the Act, which has been given very
wide definition.
43. Now, the question arises is that what relief should
be granted to the teachers, who stand superannuated on
attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years prior to
this Judgment. The provisions of the Act are to extend
the age of superannuation of the teachers so that
services of experienced workforce of the teachers are
utilized for constructive work of imparting education
for another period of two years. The provision is not
meant for a personal benefit of the teachers but for
larger public good that the experienced teachers should
impart education for another period of two years. In
view of the said fact, we hold that the teachers, who
have attained the age of 62 years prior to the order of
this Court passed today, shall not be entitled to any
consequential benefit of pay and allowances but the
teachers, who have not attained the age of 62 years,
shall be called upon to perform their duties upto the age
of 62 years."
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid decision of this Court, it is
apparent from perusal of Annexure P/2, P/3 as well as P/4 that the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62227
4 WP-8507-2015
herein was imparting education/technical skill and accordingly, was entitled
to continue in employment till the age of 62 years inasmuch as similarly
situated employee who was holding the post of Craft Inspector was permitted
to continue in employment till the age of 62 years. In the case in hand, the
petitioner has been superannuated upon attaining the age of 60 years,
Annexures P/2, P/3, P/4 and others documents have been filed alongwith the
record reflect that the petitioner was imparting education and also technical
skill.
8. In absence of any rebuttal to the assertions as well as the documents
contained in Annexures P/2, P/3 and P/4, in the considered view of this
Court, the petitioner was entitled to continue in employment as the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Yugal Kishor Sharma (supra) held that that
employee therein entitled to continue till the age of 62 years. However, while
granting consequential benefits, the back-wages were denied. Thus, in the
light of aforesaid decision of Full Bench of this Court, this Court is of the
view that impugned orders pertaining to retirement of the petitioner upon
attaining the age of 60 years are unsustainable.
9. Thus, the impugned order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure P/4) as well
as order dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure P/8) so far as they relate to the present
petitioner, stand quashed.
10. The respondents are directed to extend all the benefits to the
petitioner while treating her to be superannuated upon attaining the age of 62
years except pay and allowances for extended period of two years.
11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62227
5 WP-8507-2015
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
