RAMDEEN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE, identical questions are involved in all the aforesaid petitions listed today, with the consent of parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) THE facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 1562/2012(S). The petitioner was initially employed in workcharge contingency establishment on 01.01.1997. However, by order dated 07.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), the department classified him as permanent employee on the post mentioned in column 7 of Annexure P-2. The case of the petitioner is that after classification as permanent employee, he is entitled to continue till attaining the age of superannuation for permanent employee, i.e., 62 years. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-1 dated 10.09.2011, whereby he is still treated as a daily wager and directed to be retired on attaining the age of 60 years.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.