Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnihore Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 11 November, 2013
Writ Petition No :: 19244 / 2013
Ramnihore Pathak Vs. State of MP and others
11.11.2013.
Shri A.S. Jha, Senior Advocate, with Shri B.M. Prasad
for the petitioner.
Smt. D.K. Bohrey, Panel Lawyer, for the State, on
advance notice.
Petitioner, who is working as a Laboratory Technician in
Sanjay Gandhi Smriti Government College, Sidhi, has filed this
writ petition and is challenging the action of the respondents in
not permitting the petitioner to work upto the age of 65 years and proposing to retire him at the age of 62 years.
It is stated that the State Government has issued a circular vide Annexure P/1 dated 6.3.1997 and Annexure P/2 dated 31.8.1998 whereby Laboratory Technicians are being treated as Teachers and under such circumstances, petitioner claims that he is entitled to work upto the age of 65 years. Placing reliance on certain interim orders passed by this Court on 19.11.2012 and on 27.12.2012, in Writ Petition Nos.18476/2012 and 22002/2012 - Annexures P/6 and P/7, relief is claimed for.
Smt. Bohrey, learned Panel Lawyer, invites my attention to the judgment rendered by the Gwalior Bench recently on 7.10.2013, in Writ Petition No. 3380/2013 (R.S. Kushwaha Vs. State of MP and others); Writ Petition No. 5404/2013 (Harishankar Verma Vs. State of MP and others); and, Writ Petition No.3485/2013 (Kailash Narayan Verma Vs. State of MP and others), and submits that similar petitions have been dismissed.
2Writ Petition No :: 19244 / 2013 Ramnihore Pathak Vs. State of MP and others Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that similar petition filed by identically situated Laboratory Technicians claiming similar benefit for working upto the age of 65 years, on the ground that they are teachers, has already been rejected by the Gwalior Bench. Earlier also, Writ Petition No.2013/2011(S) [Mahesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of MP and others] has been dismissed and the judgment rendered in the case of Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra) by the Single Bench has been affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 362/2011.
Following the aforesaid judgment, similar contentions have been rejected and on 7.10.2013, under similar circumstances, the Gwalior Bench has held as under:
"7. I find no substance on the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and find no reason to deviate from the view taken by this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra). The contention that the circular dated 16.4.2010 was not taken into account is factually incorrect. The order passed in W.P. No.2013/11 makes it clear that the said circular was taken into account before reaching to the conclusion. Apart from this, M.P. Adhivarshiki (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam was brought into force which does not include the Laboratory Technician as 'Teacher'. Merely because in some cases the instructions are imparted by the petitioners, it will not bring them within the ambit of 'Teacher'. I am bound by the judgment rendered in Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra) 3 Writ Petition No :: 19244 / 2013 Ramnihore Pathak Vs. State of MP and others affirmed by the Division Bench. I find no distinguishing feature to deviate from the said view.
8. Resultantly, the petitions are merit-less and are hereby dismissed."
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Gwalior Bench, no case is made out for interference.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-