ADHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the decision of learned Single Judge, dated 18-11-2011 in W.P. No. 16122/2011 (S). The appellant had challenged the communication dated 31-5-2011 issued under the signature of Divisional Forest Officer, at Page No. 68 of the appeal paper book, whereby the appellant was disengaged from service w.e.f. 30-11-2011. It is common ground that the appellant was in service on daily rated basis since year 1981. The appellant would claim that his services were governed by the provisions of the Standard Standing Orders, as applicable to State of Madhya Pradesh, and as a result of which his services could not be discontinued until his completion of 58 years of age. The Department, however, relies on notification dated 28-3-2006 issued by the Forest Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh which provides that the services of daily rated workman should be discontinued on completion of 30 years of service or 60 years of age whichever is earlier.

(2.) The appellant relies on a recent decision of Division Bench of our High Court in Mahesh Rajak v. State of M.P. and others, 2012 4 MPHT 211 to buttress the above submission. The learned Single Judge, however, non-suited the appellant essentially on the basis of preliminary issue that the applicability of Standard Standing Orders can be adjudicated only by the Appropriate Court dealing with the disputes covered under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Standard Standing Orders and not in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In other words, learned Single Judge has not dealt with the merits of the controversy at all.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the final conclusion reached by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition referred by the appellant. He further submits that even on merits the appellant has no case as the issue is covered by the decision of the Full Bench of our High Court in case of Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P. and others, 2011 3 MPHT 81