Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Revati Raman Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 July, 2017

                             WP-17961-2014
             (REVATI RAMAN SHUKLA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


25-07-2017

Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Siddharth Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.

This writ petition under Article 226 and  of the

Constitution of India has been filed by a Lab Technician

serving in the Govt. Ayurved College, Rewa, with a
grievance that in terms of the order passed by the State

Government, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the

service upto the age of 62 years as per order dated

06.09.2002 Annexure P/5 as Lab Technician and Lab

Assistants have been held at par with Teachers and since by

way of amendment in Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak

(Ardhvarshiki Ayu) Dwitya Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1998,

the age of superannuation of Teachers was enhanced from

60 to 62 years. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to serve upto

the age of 62 years.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent State

contends that in the light of explanation appended to Fundamental Rules, 1956, sub rule (2), by aforesaid amendment act, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of age of retirement of 62 years. Learned counsel contends that unless petitioner serving as Lab Technician has 20 years of teaching experience and lien to the post, the aforesaid benefit cannot be extended. Heard.

There is no cavil of doubt between the parties that the Lab Technicians like petitioner have been held at par with Teachers by virtue of the order of the State Government dated 06.09.2002 (Annexure P/5). There is also no dispute that age of retirement of Teachers by aforesaid amendment is increased to 62 years. However, the area of controversy between the parties revolve around explanation appended to sub rule (1) (a) of Rule 2 of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.

Therefore, the explanation is reproduced below:-

“Explanation : For the purpose of this sub rule “Teacher” means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational institution including technical or medical educational institutions, 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 20 years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned school/ collegiate/ technical/ medical education service.” Upon reading of the aforesaid explanation, this Court is of the view that for the purpose of this writ petition, the same may be read in two parts :-

A. For the purpose of this sub rule “Teacher” means a Government servant by whatever designation called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in Government educational institution including technical or medical educational institutions, in accordance with the recruitment Rules applicable to such appointment.

B. 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 20 years provided he holds a lien on a post in the concerned School/ Collegiate/ Technical/ Medical education service. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner falls in the clause A and the contention of respondents' counsel that he falls in Clause B, is rejected.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.9.2014 is quashed. Petitioner is entitled to continue in service upto the age of 62 years. Since the petitioner by way of interim relief has continued to work upto the age of 62 years, and stood retired on 31.12.2016, hence, the respondents are directed to decide his pension case and other benefits treating him to have retired upon completion of 62 years of age.

C.C. as per rules.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE