VED PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 17.03.2020; whereby, the services of the incumbents like the petitioner, including the petitioner, have been directed to be repatriated to their parent department i.e. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Tilhan Sangh on the anvil that they stood retired or to retire on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Petitioner further seeks direction to allow the petitioner to continue in service beyond 60 years of age till 62 years of age. Further direction is being sought to the respondents to issue absorption order in favour of the petitioner in terms of the scheme dated 12.08.2013 formulated by the State Government. Petitioner also seeks direction to the respondents to implement the direction dated 11.07.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary of Government of Madhya Pradesh with regard to initiation of absorption proceedings.

(2.) Evidently, the petitioner is an employee of OILFED (Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Oilseed Growers Federation), which has been under liquidation. The State Government came out with a scheme of absorption of surplus employees of OILFED in various departments of the State Government vide circular No.C-3-14/2013/1/3 dated 12.8.2013. Clause 3 whereof lays down the procedure for absorption. It is further evident from cogent material documents on record that the petitioner has not been absorbed. Though it is contended that the petitioner was earmarked for absorption in the Commercial Tax Department, however, the fact remains that the petitioner was not absorbed and he has not raised the dispute qua the absorption in present writ petitions. In absence whereof, petitioner remained the surplus employee of OILFED which being a society (in liquidation) is not shown to have adopted the enhanced age of retirement as applicable to the employees of the State Government. Furthermore, being on deputation in Backward Class and Minority Welfare Department of State of Madhya Pradesh, in absence of absorption therein, the petitioner cannot seek a mandamus to be retained in the said department.

(3.) As regard to direction to the respondents to implement the direction dated 11.07.2014, evident it is that, the same is not an order but extract of note-sheet dated 11.07.2014. The law is trite that no right flows from a note-sheet which is only an opinion of concerned department or the Authority. Further, the effect of an office note in the note-sheet was considered by the Constitution Bench in Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395, wherein it was held :