Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2017
WP-8878-2017
(ARUN KUMAR SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-07-2017
Shri Akash Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.K. Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
With consent, arguments heard. Order dictated in open Court in presence of counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this matter is squarely covered by the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.21046/2016.
The short point involved in this writ petition is whether petitioner is entitled to continue in government service till he attains the age of 62 years.
It is an admitted fact that petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department. It is also an admitted fact that services of the petitioner stood absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Upper Division Teacher by virtue of order dated 06.06.1998 and since then he has been working as Upper Division Teacher.
Learned Counsel for petitioner has invited attention to the Act no. 27 of 1998 whereby F.R. 56 was amended and after amendment it reads as under:-
â2. Amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 as substituted by Section
2 of the Madhya Pradesh Act No. 29 of 1967. In Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (No. 29 of 1967) after sub-rule (1) of rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules, the following sub-rule shall be inserted namely;
(1-a) subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) every Government Teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty two years;
Provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is the first of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of sixty two years.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-
rule,ÂâTeacherâÂmeans a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational institution including technical or medical educational institution in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to such appointment and shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged in teaching for not less than twenty years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School / Collegiate / Technical / Medical education service.â A bare perusal of the amendment in F.R. 56 goes to show that a person working as a teacher is entitled to continue in government service till he attains the age of 62 years. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer laid emphasis on the explanation to contend that since the petitioner had not completed 20 years of teaching experience, therefore, he is not a teacher and is not entitled to continue till he attains the age of 62 years in government service.
I am afraid to accept the contention of learned Panel Lawyer. Admittedly, the petitioner was absorbed in government service as Upper Division Teacher in the year 1998 and since he has been imparting teaching to the students, his case would not be covered by the explanation which extends meaning of the word âteacherâ to those who have been appointed as teacher who are working on administrative post on account of promotion or otherwise and holding the lien on the post of teacher. I am fortified in view of the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in W.P. No. 6721/2016, W.P. No. 7771/2016, W.P. No.15757/2014, W.P. No. 2242/2014, W.P. No. 18400/2015, W.P. No.11088/2015 as well as the order passed in Writ Appeal No.499/2014 decided on 23.11.2015.
In view of the aforementioned discussion, it is directed that the petitioner shall continue in government service till he attains the age of 62 years.
Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. C.C. As per rules.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Vikram