Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vidhyadhar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 4 February, 2014
1
W.P.No.18476/2012 & W.P.No.22002/2012
04.02.2014
Shri Arun Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner in writ
petition No.18476/2012.
Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for petitioner in writ
petition No.22002/2012.
Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for
respondent/State.
The question which crops up for consideration in these petitions as to whether Laboratory Technicians working in a colleges under Higher Education are engaged in teaching as would categorize them as teachers which would entitle them for an extended age of retirement from 62 years to 65 years is no more res-integra and has been settled at rest by a decision in Mahesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others : writ petition No.2013/2011(s) decided on 19.05.2011 and affirmed in writ appeal No.362/2011. That, the decision has been followed in R.S.Kushwaha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : writ petition No.3380/2013, Harishankar Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : writ petition No.5404/2013 and Kailash Narayan Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : writ petition No.3485/2013 decided on 07.10.2013 by Gwalior Bench of this Court, wherein it is held :
"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 2 contention that the circular dated 16.4.2010 was not taken into account is factually incorrect. The order passed in W.P.2013/11 makes it clear that the said circular was taken into account before reaching to the conclusion. Apart from this, M.P. Adhivarshiki (Sansodhan) 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 in Mahesh Chandra Gupta (supra) affirmed by the Division Bench. I find no distinguishing feature to deviate from the said view."
That, following the above verdict, petition by similarly placed Laboratory Technicians : Ramnihore Pathak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. : writ petition No.19244/2013 has also been dismissed on 11.11.2013 by a Bench of this Court.
In view whereof, no interference is caused and since no relief can be granted, petitions fail and are dismissed. However, not without a caveat that, the petitioners who have worked beyond the age of 62 years by virtue of interim protection granted in this petition, no recovery should be made of the remuneration paid to the petitioners. However, retiral dues would be settled as per age of superannuation. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE anand