NARAIN PRASAD BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the Government retiring him on his attaining the age of 54 years.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Court of Municipal Magistrate on 16 -1 -1940. He was confirmed and was promoted as Record Keeper, whilst in the service of the erstwhile State of Gwalior in about the the year 1945 he was appointed as Secretary to the Muncipality. The service conditions of the petitioner were then governed by Civil Service Rules Riyasat Gwalior Samvat 1991. On merger of Gwalior State in to new State of Madhya Bharat, he became the servant into force of new State of Madhya Bharat. The Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 came into force from 26 -1 -1954. The petitioner was now designated as Chief Executive Officer. This was done under section 43 (2) (b) of the above Act, After States Reorganisation in 1956, he continued to be the Chief Executive Officer of Chanderi Municipal Committee in the new State of Madhya Pradesh. The new State of Madhaya Pradesh passed the M.P. Muncipalities Act, 1961 (Act No. 37 of 1961) and the same was brought in to force by general notification made under section 89 (1) of the Act. By this notification, the Chief Executive Officers of the Municiplities became the Chief Municipal Officers. The petitioner was thus a Chief Municipal Officer at the relevant time. The petitioner declared his date of birth as 8 -12 -1916.

(3.) BY a notification No. 449 -18 -U -2 -73. dated 25 -8 -1973 the M.P. State Municipal Services (Executive) Rules, 1973 were brought in to force. The rules are framed in exercise of powers under section 86 read with section 355 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Thereafter, a notice dated 3 -9 -1974 was served on the petitioner intimating him that the State Government has decided that all those employees of the Municipal Councils who have attained the age of 58 years must be retired forthwith. The petitioner completed his 58 years of age on 30 -6 -1974. The petitioner sent his reply to this notice claiming that he was entitled to continue till he attained the age of 60 years and praying that he be continued till that age. But the State Government did not agree and by an order dated 19 -10 -1974 ordered the petitioner to retire with effect from 8 -12 -1974.