NARENDRA SINGH RAGHUWANSHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this petition challenging order dated 27/07/12 passed by respondent no.2. The case of petitioner in short is that Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board was abolished and in its place five companies were formed by policy decision of State Govern- ment on 1/7/2002. Petitioners are working as Assistant Draftsman with the respondent no.2. They were given an option to switch over to newly formed companies on 23/05/11. Petitioners exercised their option to join Madhya Pradesh Madhya kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. Thereafter impugned circular dated 27/07/2012 was issued and post of Assistant draftsman was included in the list of dying cadre. Petitioners who were included in dying cadre has to retire at the age of 58 years and were not given any option for enhanced age of retirement at the age of 60 years.

(2.) It is averred by the petitioners that petitioners were not made aware of order dated 09/06/11 that post of Assistant Draftsman was not included in the new setup and declared as dying cadre. Since petitioners were not aware of said order, therefore, they opted for Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. Other company that is M.P. Power Generating Company Limited has given the benefit of age of superannuation upto the age 60 years to all its employees even if they are placed in the dying Cadre. If petitioners would have known the order dated 9/6/11 they would have opted for different company. It is averred by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that similarly placed employees were given benefit of enhanced age of superannuation, that has to run parallel and no discrimination can be made by unilateral action of re- spondent authorities. Classification made has no rational basis or nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The order dated 27/07/12 is arbitrary in nature. In view of above prayer was made to quash circular dated 27/07/12 and if necessary to set aside order dated 9/06/11 and to grant petitioners the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation upto 60 years.

(3.) Respondents had filed their reply and stated therein that post which are not directly connected with work of supply and collection of rev- enue were worked out and post on which establishment expenditure ap- parent to be undesirable and also post which were not required in future in company were treated as dying Cadre. Respondents are authorised to modify the service conditions as per Rule 131 and 133 of Vidyut Adhin- iyam, 2003 with condition that service condition shall not be less than their original service conditions. The work of employees which was not in consonance with work carried out by the answering respondents is placed in dying cadre. The age of superannuation of petitioners was 58 years when they were appointed in MPEB. There is no change in service condition of petitioners and in new company also they will retire at age of 58 years. Petitioners have no legal right to claim any option to retire at age of 60 years. They cannot compare themselves with the other employ- ees. Work of answering respondent is different from Power Generating Company and organisational structure of both companies are different, therefore, petitioner cannot claim parity with Power Generating Com- pany.