Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prem Narayan Sharama vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 January, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.9242/2012
(Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.)
Jabalpur, Dated :17.01.2019
Shri Narendra Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in W.P. No.13763/2013(s) by order dated 30.01.2014 in the matter of Padam Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and following the said judgment another W.P. No.17802/2016(s), Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. has also been allowed by co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.01.2017. He has prayed for the same relief.
Learned counsel for the State has not disputed the said aspect of the matter but it is stated that in view of the Full Bench decision passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma in W.A. No. 613/2016, vide order dated 25.01.2018, the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9242/2012 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.) consequential benefits of pay and allowances to the teachers, who have attained the age of 62 years is denied.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of L.D.C. on 15.10.1981 at District Panchayat, Sehore. He was thereafter selected and appointed on the post of Supervisor in the department of Adult Education vide order dated 28.02.1987. The State of Madhaya Pradesh, Social Welfare Department vide order dated 21.07.1994 decided to transfer all the staff working under the Adult Education to the School Education Department. The services of the petitioner was also transferred to School Education Department and later on vide order dated 06.06.1998, his services were absorbed in the School Education Department, on 13.11.2002, on the post of Upper Division Teacher. Later on, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Master vide order dated 19.06.2009. The petitioner had continued on the post of Head Master till the age of 61 years, however, an order dated 13.06.2012, he was retired abruptly with effect from 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9242/2012 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.) 30.04.2011, on attaining the age of 60 years and the salary for the period from 01.05.2011 to 13.06.2012, till the date he worked was withheld subject to the decision of the government in this regard.
In the case of Padam Kumar (supra) decided on 30.01.2014, in similar circumstances, an employee who was earlier working as Supervisor in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department and was later absorbed as teacher was granted the benefit to continue upto to the age of 62 years. This Court in the aforesaid case has held as under :-
"Facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Supervisor Adult Education (Executive) in the Social Welfare Department w.e.f. 22/2/87. His services were declared surplus and by order dt. 25/7/94 he was absorbed in the School Education Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. He was absorbed as a Upper Division Teacher. The State Government has later on issued an order which is also on record as (Annexure P/4) granting seniority to the petitioner on the post of UDT w.e.f. 1/10/02 meaning thereby, the petitioner is holding a substantive post of Teacher under the School Education Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The age of retirement in respect of teachers is 62 years by virtue of M.P. Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Aayu) Dwitiya Sansodhan 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9242/2012 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.) Adhiniyam, 1998. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dt. 2/11/13 by which he is being superannuated at the age of 60 years. The respondent - State has filed a reply and their contention is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Adult Education Supervisor and as he has not put in 20 years of service as a teacher, he is entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years in the light of the Explanation to the proviso to the Amendment Act of 1998. It has also been stated that only those persons who are engaged in Teaching activities and who have put in more than 20 years of service as a Teacher are entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years as they are included within the meaning of definition of a Teacher as defined under the Explanation.
This Court has very carefully gone through the Act No. 27 of 1998. The amending provisions incorporated under the Adhiniayam reads as under :
2. 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 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9242/2012 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.) 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 "Teacher" means 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".
The aforesaid amendment makes it very clear that Teachers are entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years and other persons who are not designated as teacher and even though they are not designated as teacher are also entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years if they are having 20 years of teaching experience.
There is no dispute that the petitioner is not a Teacher and order dt. 19/5/2006 (Annexure P/4) establishes that the petitioner is a teacher.
Resultantly, by virtue of the M.P. Shashkiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Aayu) Dwitiya Sansodhan Adhiniyam, 1998, the petitioner is entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits.
6HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9242/2012 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.) Resultantly, the impugned order is 2/11/13 is hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to continue the petitioner upto the age of 62 years."
In the case of Yugal Kishore Sharma (supra), the Full Bench in para 43 of the judgment has held :-
"43. Now, the question arises is that what relief should be granted to the teachers, who stand superannuated on attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years prior to this Judgment. The provisions of the Act are to extend the age of superannuation of the teachers so that services of experienced workforce of the teachers are utilized for constructive work of imparting education for another period of two years. The provision is not meant for a personal benefit of the teachers but for larger public good that the experienced teachers should impart education for another period of two years. In view of the said fact, we hold that the teachers, who have attained the age of 62 years prior to the order of this Court passed today, shall not be entitled to any consequential benefit of pay and allowances but the teachers, who have not attained the age of 62 years, shall be called upon to perform their duties up-to the age of 62 years."
As far as the entitlement of the petitioner to continue on the post of Teacher till the age of of 62 years is 7 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.9242/2012 (Prem Narayan Sharma Vs. State of MP & ors.) concerned, it is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Padam Kumar (supra) and Arun Kumar Sharma (supra). However, in view of the observation made by the Full Bench in Yugal Kishore (supra), as the petitioner has already completed his 62 years of age in the year 2013, he will not be entitled for consequential benefits after 13.06.2012.
Hence, this writ petition is allowed. As the petitioner has worked till 13.06.2012, he will be entitled for salary and other benefits for the aforesaid period. However, in view of the observations made by the Full Bench in Yudgal Kishore (supra), he will not be entitled to any consequential benefits after 13.06.2012.
Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Smt. Nandita Dubey) Judge gn Digitally signed by GEETHA NAIR Date: 2019.01.19 12:38:13 +05'30'