SARASWATI KUMRE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a direction against the respondents to permit them to continue in service up to the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts in brief are these. The petitioners were appointed on 10. 3. 1975 as Upper Division Teachers in the Tribal Department of the State Government. On 4. 6. 1983 they were sent on deputation to another department of Woman and Child Development as Child development Project Officers (CDPOs) under Integrated Child development Scheme (ICDS ). The petitioners were then promoted in their parent department on 5. 8. 1987 to the posts of Lecturer and on 4. 1. 1991 they were further promoted to the posts of Principal. On 31. 8. 1998 the State Government issued a circular by which retirement age of Government teacher was enhanced from 60 to 62 years. Thereafter, the State Government also amended Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules by Madhya Pradesh Act No. 27/1998 with effect from 7. 8. 1998 and enhanced the retirement age of every government teacher to 62 years. The services of petitioners were absorbed in the Department of Woman and Child Development on 22. 9. 1999 on the posts of Assistant Director, Samwarg. On their absorption in the Department of Woman and Child Development they lost their lien in the parent department where they were working as teachers. The petitioners were retired on attaining the age of 60 years according to rules of service applicable to the services in which they had been absorbed and working. Aggrieved by their retirement they have filed the present petition. According to the petitioners, since their lien was retained on the posts of teacher/principal in the parent department for more than 20 years, they fall within the meaning of teacher as explained in Rule 56 and, therefore, the respondents cannot retire them before they attain the age of 62 years.

(3.) THE respondents, who are officers of Woman and Child development Department, have denied in their return that the petitioners come within the definition of teacher contained in the explanation to Rule 56. They have also stated that petitioners have no right to continue in service beyond 60 years of age.