[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of M.P. vs Ramcharan on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9490
1 WP-1428-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1428 of 2012
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Versus
RAMCHARAN
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the petitioners/State.
None for the respondent, though served.
ORDER
1. Record indicate that though the respondent is represented
through counsel Shri S.C. Sharma and Shri Subodh Pradhan, but none
appeared on behalf of the respondent on 20.08.2025 and therefore, the
matter was adjourned so as to afford one opportunity to the respondent.
On 08.09.2025 also none appeared for the respondent and therefore, SPC
was directed to be issued so as to as secure the representation of the
respondent. In spite thereof, none appeared for the respondent when the
matter was taken up on 27.10.2025 and 25.11.2025.
2. Looking to the fact that the matter is pending since 2012, the
same is taken up for consideration.
3. The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the award dated 13.08.2008
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9490
2 WP-1428-2012
passed by the Labour Court (Camp Court) District Morena in Case
No.20-A/I.D.Act/2007 (Ref.) whereby, the retirement of the respondent
at the age of 55 years was set aside and the respondent was directed to
continue in service up to the age of 62 years.
4. The petition also challenges the order dated 26.11.2010 passed
by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior (Camp Morena) whereby, the
application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been allowed and wages for a period
of seven years w.e.f. 31.10.2000 upto the respondent attaining the age of
62 years amounting to Rs.1,88,338/- has been directed to be paid.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the respondent was working as a daily wager and in terms of the circular
dated 9.3.2000, as prevalent at the relevant time, he was retired on
attaining the age of 55 years w.e.f. 31.10.2000. The respondent
approached the Labour Court against the aforesaid retirement and the
Labour Court, by placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Vishnu Mutaiya vs. State of M.P. & Ors., 2006 (1)
MPLJ 323, allowed the claim of the respondent and directed the
petitioners to continue the respondent in service upto the age of 62 years.
He submits that the reliance placed upon by the Labour Court on the
judgment in the case of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) would have no
applicability to the case of the respondent as the case of Vishnu Mutaiya
(supra) was that of a Gangman whereas, the respondent, who was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9490
3 WP-1428-2012
working in the department of Water Resources as a daily wager, was not
a Gangman. He further submits that the learned Labour Court vide order
dated 26.11.2010 has also erred in granting wages to the respondent on
the basis of the earlier award dated 13.08.2008 for a period of seven
years.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places
reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Badri vs. State of M.P. & Ors. W.P. No.3778/2008 decided along with
connected cases on 07.09.2011 wherein, the Full Bench judgment in the
case of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) and its applicability on daily wagers has
been explained.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. The core issue arising for consideration in the instant writ
petition is as to whether, a daily wager employee can claim continuation
in service as of right upto the age of 62 years and whether the award
dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Labour Court allowing the claim of the
respondent by placing reliance on the Full Bench Judgment in the case
of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) is justified?
9. It is undisputed from the material available on record that the
respondent was working as a daily wager employee with the petitioners
and on attaining the age of 55 years, his services were disengaged w.e.f.
31.10.2000 in terms of the circular dated 9.3.2000 (Annexure P/8) which
was prevalent at the relevant time and provided that the daily wagers
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9490
4 WP-1428-2012
employees shall not be engaged beyond 55 years of age.
10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mathura
Prasad Yadav vs. State of M.P., 2010(3) MPLJ 323 has considered the
aspect of nature of engagement of a daily wager employee and by
placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Ashok Tiwari vs. M.P. Text Book Corporation and another, 2010(2)
MPLJ (FB) 662 and also after taking into consideration the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) has held
that the daily wager employee are not governed by any statutory service
rules and they are not part of any service as their engagement is on day-
to-day basis.
11. The case of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) was pertaining to the
petitioners who were working on the post of Gangmen and whose
services were governed by the provisions of the M.P. Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules 1976 and therefore, the benefit of the judgment in the case
of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) is not available to a daily wager employee as
he stands on a totally different footing from an employee who is
appointed on a sanctioned and vacant post in accordance with the
provisions of the said Rules and forms part of the service governed by
those Rules.
12. Therefore, an identical claim seeking continuation in service
upto the age of 62 years was rejected by this Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9490
5 WP-1428-2012
Mathura Prasad Yadav (supra) . Subsequently, the judgment in the case
o f Mathura Prasad (supra) was referred for consideration by a larger
Bench (Division Bench) in terms of Rule 8 (Chapter IV) of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court Rules & Orders, 2008 in W.P. No.3778/2008(s):
Badri S/o Late Shri Lalchand vs. State of M.P. and others and the
Division Bench of this Court while answering the reference vide
judgment dated 7.9.2011 has held as under:-
"16.In this view of the matter, in our opinion, a daily
wager employee is not entitled to continue in service up
to the age of 62 years as provided to a Class IV
employees of the State in accordance with the provisions
of the M. P. Shaskhiya Sevak Adhivarshiki Aayu Tritiya
Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1998. A Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Vishnu Mutiya and others v. State of
M.P. and others, reported in 2006 (1) MPLJ 23 , has held
that the services of Gangman are governed by the Rules
applicable to M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid
Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service
Rules, 1976 and they are entitled to continue in service
up to the age 62 years at par with Class IV employees of
the State. However, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid
judgment cannot be made applicable to the daily wager
employees because the daily wager employees stand on
different footing:
17 . Consequently, we answer the reference by holding
that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Mathura
Prasad Yadav vs. State of M.P., reported in 2010 (3)
MPLJ 323, has taken a correct view that the daily wager
employees are not eligible to continue in service up to
the age of 62 years and the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in another Writ Petition No.6692/2010 (S),
Ramswaroop Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others, has
not taken the correct view. We further hold that a daily
wager employee is not entitled to claim particular age
limit for continuing in service in absence of any rule in
this regard. The department or Government is at liberty
to fix the age of a daily wager to continue in service.
Accordingly, we answer the reference and substantial
question of law framed by the learned Single Judge."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9490
6 WP-1428-2012
13. In view of the reference so answered, it is abundantly clear
that a daily wager employee cannot claim continuation in service upto
the age of 62 years and even the Full Bench judgment in the case
o f Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) is not applicable to daily wager employees.
Accordingly, the learned Labour Court erred in applying the judgment in
the case of Vishnu Mutaiya (supra) while allowing the claim of the
respondent vide award dated 13.08.2008.
14. The said award, in view of the above discussions, is
therefore quashed. Consequently, the order dated 26.11.2010 allowing
the application filed by the respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 also stands quashed by holding that the respondent was rightly
retired on attaining the age of 55 years. The writ petition stands allowed
and disposed of.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
