LAWS(MPH)-2013-1-81

KANTI LAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 17, 2013
KANTI LAL SAHU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court inter alia for a declaration that the explanation to sub-rule (1)(c), renumbered as Clause (a), to Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki Ayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1967 in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules is ultra vires to the extent it excludes the Medical Officer or Medico Legal Specialist appointed to an administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who has been engaged otherwise. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that if the explanation is read in the manner suggested by the petitioners, it would not be necessary to rest the challenge to the vires of the Rules.

(2.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the persons appointed as Medical Officer, such as the petitioners, are entitled to retire at the age of 65 years. Both the petitioners were appointed as Chief Medical & Health Officer on 12.01.1993. Their earlier appointment in different capacity is not relevant here. By virtue of this appointment, they claimed that the retirement age is 65 years.

(3.) The retirement age has been provided by Fundamental Rule 56. To the extent it is relevant, reads as follows :