S P PATEL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also govern disposal of W.P. No. 22089/2012, W.P. No. 18152/2012, W.P. No. 20409/2012 and W.P. No. 20435/2012. However, for convenience, facts are taken from W.P. No. 17884/2012. The petitioner, who is an employee working in the time scale pay and post, has approached this Court ventilating his grievance against the order dated 26-9-2012 issued by the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (herein after-referred to as 'University'), by which he is communicated that he is to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2012, as he is completing 60 years of age. It is contended that the age of superannuation of Class-IV employees working in work charged contingency and otherwise, has been enhanced from 60 to 62 years by the State Government. The said enhanced age is made applicable even for the Gangmen of the Public Works Department, has been adopted by the Veterinary University and, therefore, the petitioner could not be retired at the age of 60 years. It is contended that all the benefits of a Class-IV employee were made available to the petitioner after granting him time scale pay of Class-IV post and, therefore he has to be treated as a class-IV employee of the University and is entitled to continue on the post up to the age of 62 years. It is contended that since such sanctioned posts were created by the University, the petitioner was granted the benefit of appointment on the said post, action of the respondents, retiring him at the age of 60 years is not justified.

(2.) The respondents by filing the return have contended that the petitioner was never appointed on any Class-IV post. It is their stand that Class-IV posts are specifically sanctioned in terms of the Statute. The petitioner has never been given any posting on such Class-IV post. He being merely a daily wager, is not entitled to any benefit of enhancement in age and as such the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted in the present petition. The facts have been brought to the notice of the persons like petitioner that they cannot be treated at par with the Class-IV employees as when the age of superannuation of Class-IV employees was enhanced to 62 years, correspondence was done with the State Government asking guidance whether the said benefit of enhancement of the age up to 62 years was to be granted to the time scale pay labours or not. It was informed by the State Government that no amendment was made in the age of superannuation of the time scale pay labours and, therefore, the petitioner was not to be granted the said benefit. It is, thus, contended that entire petition is based on misconceived and misleading, facts and deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) By filing a rejoinder as also an application for taking additional documents on record, the petitioner has pointed out that in fact vide order dated 13-3-1990 the posts were already created by the University against which post the benefit was extended to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not entitled to the similar age enhancement as was granted to Class-IV employees. An additional submission, is made by the respondents annexing with it relevant documents to show that no such post was ever created by the respondents. In fact such posts were not to be created by the respondents against the statutory provisions. It is contended that the definitions of posts have been given in the Regulations titled Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Services (General Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1969. The post of time scale labour is not classified as a post in the said Regulations and, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be made on a Class-IV post entitling him to enhanced age of superannuation. It is, thus, contended that on this count also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.