RAM SUMIRAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as a Class -IV employee in the establishment of respondent No.2 and in the employment of M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Limited (herein after referred to as 'Corporation'), has approached this Court challenging the notice of superannuation issued to him by the respondents indicating that he would retire on 30.11.2012 on attaining the age of 60 years, alleging that a decision was already taken by the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation to enhance the age of superannuation of all the Class -IV employees from 60 to 62 years but the petitioner is made to retire prematurely without implementing the said decision. It is contended that in fact the respondent Corporation is an autonomous body, has its own service regulations, therefore, if a decision was taken by the respondents to enhance the age of superannuation of Class -IV employees, such a decision was to be implemented. Instead the matter was referred to the State Government for grant of sanction, though was not necessary and in the garb of such grant of prior sanction, the petitioner has not been given the benefit of enhanced age of superannuation. This being so, the act of the respondents is per se illegal. It is, thus, claimed that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the employment of the respondents till he attains the age of superannuation on attaining the age of 62 years, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) A return has been filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 denying such allegations and contending inter alia that a resolution was passed by the Corporation and thereafter the matter was referred to the State Government for grant of sanction for enhancement of age of retirement of Class - IV employees from 60 to 62 years on 13.08.2012. However, since no such sanction has been granted as per the prevailing rules, the Class -IV employees have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years. It is contended that the Corporation is a separate corporate entity having its own service rules and, therefore, provisions of the service rules of other Corporation would not be applicable. Since there was no sanction granted by the State for enhancement of the age of Class -IV employees, the action could not be taken and the petitioner has rightly been superannuated from service as per the existing age of superannuation. The respondent No.1 has simply adopted the return of respondents No.2 and 3 and has not filed any independent return.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is nowhere prescribed that any change, amendment or addition in the Regulations of the Corporation could be done only with the prior sanction of the State Government. In the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association also no such condition is mentioned as has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A document dated 14.12.1972 has been placed on record as Annexure P -4 with the writ petition making averments that in the year 1972 an enhancement of age of superannuation of Class -IV employees was done from 58 to 60 years and such an order was issued only after a decision of the Board of Directors of the Corporation without there being any sanction of the State Government. It is contended that this particular document shows that there was no need of obtaining prior approval from the State Government before making change in the age of superannuation of the employees of the Corporation. Though specific pleadings in this respect have been made in paragraph 5.4 of the writ petition describing the said document but such facts are not denied by the respondents as they have admitted in paragraph 2 of the return of respondents No.2 and 3 that the contents of paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 of the writ petition are not denied since they are the matters of record. Thus, it has to be accepted that earlier enhancement of the age of superannuation of the persons like petitioner was done by the respondent Corporation by taking an action on the decision of the Board of Directors. No prior sanction from the State Government was thus required as the same was not taken in the year 1972 itself.