cites: 167363593

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Yugal Kishore Sharma on 25 January, 2018

25) The stand of respondents shows that they need the services of nurses up to the age of 65 years, therefore, age of superannuation of every government nurse is raised, who were appointed as per the Rules mentioned in both the above explanations and whose lien is maintained in Public Health and Family Welfare Department and in Medical Education Department. The staff nurse of Ayush department is put to a comparatively disadvantageous position on the basis of educational qualification mentioned in their Rules which it is evident from the comparative chart reproduced hereinabove. The pivotal question is whether difference of qualification for the purpose of recruitment can be a basis to deprive the staff nurses of Ayush Department. Moreso, when despite this difference of educational qualification, prior to 06th May, 2011, their age of superannuation was same i.e. 62 years. That difference of educational qualification at the time of recruitment of Staff Nurses pales into insignificance because the nature of work performed by nurses of all department is same. For this reason, petitioners' services were utilized in allopathic hospitals also. Thus, the educational qualification or birth mark relating thereto in our opinion, cannot create any intelligible differentia which really distinguishes the nurses of Ayush department with their counter parts of other departments. There exists neither any intelligible differentia nor any objects sought to be achieved by keeping the petitioners at the bay and depriving them from same age of superannuation. We find support in our view from the Full Bench judgment in the case of 11 WP No.19104/20 & WP No.3365/14 Yugal Kishore (supra). One of the questions posed before the Full Bench was as under:-

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

M.P. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh vs M.P. Electricity Board on 18 March, 2004

12) Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned AAG opposed the contentions of petitioner and by placing reliance on (2020) 12 SCC 506 Ramkrishna Grover vs. Union of India and M.P. Vidyut Karmchari (Federation) Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board [(2004) 9 SCC 755] urged that the fixing the age of superannuation is within the province of the employer. It is legislature's primary function to make laws. The employees have no right to continue up to 65 years of age.

Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 49 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri vs The Union Of India And Others on 4 December, 1950

13) The judgment of Supreme Court in Chiranjeet Lal Choudhary vs. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41) is pressed into service to contend that if there is a classification, the Court will not held it invalid merely because the law might have even extended to other persons, who in some respect might resembled the class for which the law was made for. Legislature is the best judge of the need of particular class and scope of interference by Courts is extremely limited.

Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 657 - H J Kania - Full Document

Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December, 1954

28) In view of these judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned provisions of the Adhiniyam are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to persuade ourselves that employer has any unfettered right to raise the age of superannuation of one set of employees by leaving aside another despite the fact that there exists no reasonable classification which permits the employer to discriminate the left out group. No doubt it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the age of superannuation but while doing so, the employer cannot be permitted to undertake said exercise in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The step motherly treatment cannot be given to similarly situated nurses of Ayush Department. Putting it differently, the employer cannot be permitted to divide a homogenous class and create a class within the class for no valid reasons. It cannot be disputed that nurses working in Ayush Department and other departments/hospitals perform similar nature of duties. Merely because the nature of treatment in allopathic and Ayush Department are different, the staff nurses of Ayush Department cannot be treated to be a separate class. The classification so made by impugned notification cannot sustain judicial scrutiny in view of litmus test laid down in Budhan Choudhry (supra).

Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 271 - Full Document