MATHURA PD. YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the petition being aggrieved by, communication dated 5.12.2008 by which the petitioner, who is a daily wage employee working in the establishment of the respondents, has been disengaged on attaining the age of 60 years with effect from 31.12.2008.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service up to the age of 62 years as the age of superannuation prescribed for the employees of the Forest Department is 62 years.

(3.) The respondents have filed their return stating therein that the petitioner is a daily wage employee who was not engaged on a vacant sanctioned post by following the prescribed procedure and his services are also not governed by the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 and in such circumstances the claim made by the petitioner for being continued in service up to the age of 62 years is misconceived as the age of superannuation prescribed for regular employees of the service by the rules is not applicable to daily wage employees. From a perusal of the documents filed along with the petition, it is apparent that the petitioner is a daily wage employee and his engagement is on day-to-day basis. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not filed any statutory rule on record which prescribes 62 years as the age of superannuation for daily wage employees on the basis of which he can claim to continue in service as of right up to the age of 62 years. It is pertinent to note that here that it has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Tiwari Vs. M.P.Text Book Corporation and another, 2010 (2) MPHT 469 : 2010 (2) MPLJ 662 that the services of such daily wage employees are not governed by rules and they are not part of any service as their engagement is on day-to-day basis.