Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramesh Chandra Agnihotri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP-7165-2018 (RAMESH CHANDRA AGNIHOTRI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Gwalior, Dated : 04-04-2018 Shri B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Singhal, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. Petitioner has filed this petition claiming enhanced age of superannuation on the ground that he was classified as permanent against sh the post of Time Keeper which is a Class IV post. He has placed reliance on e the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30th August, 2017 ad in W.P.No.5497/17 wherein Coordinate Bench of this Court has accepted Time Keeper to be a Class IV employee.
Pr On the query of the Court, Shri B.S.Gurjar, In-charge Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, has produced copy of Gazette a hy notification dated 30th September 1977 which shows that posts of Time Keeper, Mistri and Muster Clerk are Class III posts and appointing ad authority is the Superintending Engineer for such posts.
M In view of such facts, this Court is not in agreement with the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court permitting the petitioner to of continue upto the age of 62 years inasmuch as it is an admitted position that rt age of superannuation of Class III employee was sixty years when petitioner had attained the age of 60 years. In fact, impugned order, ou Annexure P/1, has been passed after one and half years of petitioner's C attaining the age of 60 years when this fact was discovered by the authority, h therefore, no indulgence is required in the order. Petition fails and is hereby ig dismissed. However, it is made clear that since petitioner has actually H worked upto 12th March, 2018, no recovery of wages shall be made from the petitioner.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE ms/-
Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2018.04.05 11:13:15 +05'30'