Narendra Ahirwar vs State of M.P., & Ors.

This matter was heard on the joint request of the parties. The petitioner pointed out that he preferred an application dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure-P/1) in the prescribed form exercising his option to retire at the age of 60 years in place of 58 years. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents by order dated 19.03.2016 (Annexure-P/2). It is mentioned in this order that the employees were required to exercise their option till 30.05.2012 and the options received thereafter cannot be accepted.

Mr. Pradeep Naveriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said action of the respondents is bad in law and runs contrary to the recent order passed in W.A. No. 801/2016 ( Ramkripal Gupta vs. State of M.P. & others ).

Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the employer did not dispute the aforesaid legal position.

I have heard the parties on this aspect.

The Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.2090/2012 [Amrit Lal Gupta vs. M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd.] held as under:

"14. Consequent upon discussion made hereinabove, all the aforesaid petitions are hereby allowed. The communication made by the respondents Board to not to continue the petitioners on the ground of either submitting the option after the cutoff date or its rejection are hereby quashed. It is directed that all the petitioners are entitled to continue till the extended age of superannuation, i.e., 60 years, with all other consequential benefits. Some of the petitioners are continuing under the interim order passed by this court, however, they shall continue till the extended age of superannuation and those who are not in employment, they be reinstated in service within one month and be continued to serve till the extended age of superannuation i.e., 60 years. In the case of Amrit Lal Gupta, rejection of the option is not found in accordance with law; therefore, he is also entitled to all consequential benefits for such extended age. The respondent Board is directed to take appropriate action in view of the directions given hereinabove."

The said order of Writ Court was unsuccessfully challenged before Division Bench in W.A. No.150/2015 which was decided on 07.04.2015. It was held that period mentioned in the notice cannot be considered as mandatory and it is not a pre-condition for eligibility. The Division Bench in W.A. No.801/2016 opined as under:

"6. In view of the orders passed by this Court, if the time period to submit option is not mandatory, therefore, an employee can opt for extension in age at any time before attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. Since the appellant has withdrawn his earlier communication not to opt for extension before attaining the age of 58 years, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years."

In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is clear that the respondents have erred in rejecting the option exercised by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. Resultantly, impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to accept the option of the petitioner and permit him to continue up to the age of 60 years in employment. Petition is allowed.