Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hira Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
ON THE 08th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No.16880 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HIRA AHIRWAR S/O NADUAA, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION : LABOUR,
TIGODA ROCK PHOSPHATE MINE
HIRAPUR, TEHSIL SAYAGARH, DISTRICT
SAGAR IN THE OFFICE OF MINE
MANAGER, THE M.P. STATE MINING
CORPORATION LIMITED, SUB OFFICE,
DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.K. KUSHWAHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES,
MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL(M.P.)
2. THE MADHYA PRADESH MINING
CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVT. OF M.P.
UNDERTAKING), THROUGH ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADDRESS
PARYAVAS BHAWAN, BLOCK-A, 2ND
- 2 -
FLOOR, JAIL ROAD, ARERA HILLS,
BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. THE M.P. STATE MINING CORPORATION
LIMITED, THROUGH MINING MANAGER,
SUB OFFICE, BEHIND SHRI ASHARAM
BAPU ASHRAM, SHRI KRISHAN NAGAR,
MAKRONIA, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRASHANSA BAIS, ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed
the following:
ORDER
The contesting respondent No.2 and 3 have filed their reply and therefore the default pointed out by Registry as regards non-payment of process fee stands ignored.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a daily wager claiming following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records pursuant to the instant subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow and continue the petitioner in service as before till she attains the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years on the same post with all consequential benefits.
(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 04/07/2022 (Annexure- P-1) issued by respondent no.3 by which petitioner has been retired on 03/08/2022.
(iv) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow and continue the petitioner as before with
- 3 -
continuity into the service for all purposes till she attains the age of superannuation i.e. 62 years.
(v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition."
3. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also on final disposal.
4. The principal contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that since the age of superannuation qua civil post holders in Class IV category under the State has been enhanced from 60 to 62, the same benefit should accrue to petitioner daily wager.
4.1 For this purpose, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P/6) by which several Class IV employees have been retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 62 years by the respondent-Corporation.
5. Per contra, Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M.P. State Mining Corporation Limited, has filed reply inter alia submitting that the services of daily wage labourers working under the Corporation is governed by M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Rules framed thereunder (for brevity 'Standing Orders') vide Annexure R/1. Clause 16A of the Standing Orders provide thus:
"16A. RETIREMENT ON SUPERANNUATION:
Workman should be retired on reaching the age of 58 years."
- 4 -
5.1 It is further submitted that this age of superannuation has subsequently been enhanced by Central Government with effect from 27.04.2015 in following terms:
"16-A Retirement of Superannuation Workmen should be retired on reaching the age of 60 years."
6. After hearing learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that petition deserves to be dismissed for reasons infra:
(i) Petitioner appears to be labouring under the misconception that age of superannuation which was enhanced from 60 to 62 years for civil post holders automatically applies to daily wagers;
(ii) Daily wage Class IV employees are not governed by any statutory provision but their services are governed by the Standing Orders;
(iii) Enhancement in the age of superannuation applicable to civil post holders is inapplicable to daily wager.
(iv) The provision of Standing Orders clearly provide that age of superannuation would be 60 years and; therefore, daily wagers who do not hold any civil post will invariably retire on attaining the age of 60 years.
(v) In the instant case, petitioner attained the age of 60 years on 03.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) and has been rightly retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the said date vide Annexure P/1.
- 5 -
7. This Court finds no fault in the impugned order which is accordingly upheld and petition stands dismissed sans cost.
(SHEEL NAGU) JUDGE YS Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHIRVASTAVA Date: 2023.02.11 18:21:41 +05'30'