STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. JEEVARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A.No.1648/2011 for condonation of delay of 249 days. Though opposed at, however, taking into consideration the recourse to being an institutional matter, the delay is filing the appeal is not found to be deliberate and is sufficiently explained. Consequently, the delay is condoned. I.A.No.1648/2011 disposed of. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 takes exception to order dated 14.5.2010 passed in W.P.No.2197/2010 (S); whereby respondent's claim that being a Mate employed in the Water Resources Department his retirement age is 62 years has been allowed on the basis of the decision by Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 23 .

(2.) Facts leading to the controversy very briefly are that respondent initially appointed in the year 1977, thereafter continued to work as Mate in the Water Resources Department. That by order dated 28.2.2010, his services were determined having completed 60 years. Contending inter-alia that Labour, Mate, Gangman since fall within the category of Class IV employees, the respondent being a Mate is entitled to get the benefit of extended age of retirement of 62 years as per the provisions of M.P. Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Tritiya Sanshodhan Adhyadesh 1998.

(3.) Present appellant who was respondent in writ petition, denied the claim on the ground that being a labourer, he is liable to retire at the age of 60 years. It was contended that the Water Resources Department issued a letter on 2.2.2010 stipulating that as per circular No.F.13/1/2002/31/Sa. dated 30.5.2002 issued by the Finance Department the age of retirement of daily wagers is 60 years. It was further contended that being engaged as a labour on daily wages with effect from 1.8.1977, the respondent was paid wages as per the attendance marked in the muster roll. It was contended that since the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.2.1950 he has been rightly retired on attaining 60 years of age.