Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarojani Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 22 January, 2014
W.P. No. 495/2014
22/1/2014
Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate for
State of M.P.
With consent, the matter is heard finally.
Petitioner, a Junior Instructor, Government Women
Weaving Centre, Satna, under Directorate of Women
Empowerment, Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the
action of respondents in retiring her at the age of 60 years
has approached this Court vide present Writ Petition seeking direction that since she is engaged in teaching since the date of her initial appointment she is entitled to service till 62 years which is the normal age of superannuation of a teacher in the State Government service. Decision in Ku. Chandra Kakker vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : Transfer Application No. 747/1988 decided on 14.11.1991 and Yugal Kishore Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors; Writ Petition No. 4030/2009 decided on 2.1.2013: I.L.R. (2013) M.P., 791 has been relied on to reinforce the contentions that the Instructor in Women Weaving Centre is held as teacher.
In Yugal Kishore Sharma (supra), it has been held in respect of Instructor in Women Weaving Centre:
"9........If a Scheme is started by the State Government for the purposes of economic upliftment of the weaker section and the vocational trainings are prescribed in the said institution whether such an institution can be termed as educational institution or not? This particular aspect is required to be seen in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases. The Apex Court in various cases though has specifically dealt with the admissions, the systems of regularating the fees, but has normally dealt with all such cases in respect of the educational institutions like schools and colleges and has not considered whether a vocational training institute started by the State Government under the Scheme of prescribing education to the weaker section can be termed as an educational institution or not. However, from the narration of the fact and the provisions of the Constitution of India specially the responsibility of the State to make Schemes for upliftment of the weaker section, if a vocational training centre is opened prescribing vocational training to the members of the weaker section so as to make them self sufficient to make earning, it has to be held that the said institution or centres started by the State Government are covered as educational institutions. Prescribing training or providing such elementary information to make a member of the society to become self sufficient is in fact a part of imparting education. It is more so important looking to the growth of population in the country and, therefore, all such institutions established by the State Government for prescribing the training are to be treated as educational institutions. One more reason of giving such a finding is that in the amending Act, the State Government itself has included the institution established for the purposes of providing technical education. All industrial training institutions are to be treated as educational institutions. Similarly, the training centres started by the respondents under the Women and Child Development Department are also to be treated as educational institutions.
10. This Court has already held that instructors are to be treated as teachers. The Tribunal has also equated the instructors as teachers, therefore, the petitioner has to be treated as a teacher and, thus, would be entitled to continue on the post till he actually attained the age of 62 years. Since the petitioner has already worked upto the age of 62 years, in view of the aforesaid finding, he would be entitled to payment of salary of the post till the worked on the said post. If the salary has not been paid to the petitioner, now the amount be paid to him within a period of two months from the date of order. The petitioner would also be entitled to all benefits of services including, counting the period of two years of service, for the purposes of fixation of pension."
Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of M.P. does not dispute that decision in Ku. Chandra Kakker and Yugal Kishore Sharma (supra) has been implemented.
In view whereof, since the Instructor in the Women Weaving Centre has already been held to be a teacher entitled for an extended age of superannuation of 62 years, the petitioner cannot be discriminated.
In the result, it is held that the petitioner being a teacher, has a right to serve till 62 years being the age of superannuation.
Petition is allowed to the extent above. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE VKV/-