JWALA PRASAD BATHAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal under Section, 2 of the M. P. Uchcha nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 25-7-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, of this Court in W. P. No. 1393/05 (S ).

(2.) IN nutshell, the case of the appellant before the Writ Court was that the appellant was working on the past of Wireman and by order dated 4-11-04 on attaining the age of 60 years, he was retired. It was his case that at the time of retirement he was working on the post of Wireman, which is a Class IV post under the M. P. Public Works Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1976 (for brevity "rules of 1976" ). Prior to 4-11-04, there was no dispute but thereafter the government has extended the age of retirement of Class IV employees from 60 years to 62 years. The appellant filed the petition challenging the aforesaid order of premature retirement. The learned Writ Court considering the provisions of m. P. Work Charged Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1984 (for brevity "rules of 1984") found that the pay-scale of the post of Wireman was Rs. 400-525/- and such a pay-scale is classified under Class III post, therefore, it was held that he was holding the Class III post and not Class IV post, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get the benefit of retirement on attaining the age of 62 years and thus, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant has filed this appeal,

(3.) IT is submitted that the learned Writ Court has not properly considered the status of an employee under Service Rules and scope of pay-scale Rules of 1984. Even if the pay-scale is changed or enhanced, the status of employee from Class IV to Class III will not be changed simply on the basis of l pay-scale or Revision of Pay-scale.