STATE OF M P Vs. BHAJANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD.

(2.) ONLY question involved in the case is whether respondents are entitled to continue upto the age of 62 years in service.

(3.) ALL the respondents are Gangmen, who are engaged in the Workcharged establishment. Their condition of service is governed by M. P. P. W. D. Workcharged and Contingency. Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1976. These rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Counting of period of service is defined in Rule 4 of the Rules, wherein it is provided that any persons, who on 1st January, 1974 had completed atleast one year's service as Workcharged employees or contingency paid employees and who on that date were holding the posts specified in the schedule and who on that date had not completed the age of superannuation prescribed for employees holding comparable class of posts in the regular employment of the State Government. The respondents were regularised under the provisions of the aforesaid rules. Therefore, the rule specifically provides that their age of superannuation shall be that of equivalent post of regular employees of the State Govt. The Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules have also been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It is an admitted position that they are holding the post of Gangman, which is Class IV employee post. In the State Government they are entitled to serve upto the age of 62 years. Tribunal has rightly held that retirement age of respondents is 62 years. Contention of the petitioner is that the respondents are not physically fit to continue in service. This aspect of the matter can not be considered in this case unless their cases were screened and screening committee has recorded a finding that they are unfit to work beyond the age of 60 years. On failure to follow the rules, respondents can not be retired at the age of 60 years. Against the same impugned order number of writ petitions have been decided by this Court and this Court has affirmed the orders passed by the Tribunal. One of such judgment is passed in W. P. No. 860/2003 on 26-9-2003.