AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure-P/2) and 04.03.2015 (Annexure- P/15).
Admittedly, the respondents have retired the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as daily rated Gauge Reader with the respondents. The post of Gauge Reader is work-charged establishment is a Class-IV post. In the establishment of the respondents, the description of the aforesaid post is not available. Hence, they decided to retire the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years which is bad is law.
Shri A.K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner, confined his arguments by taking assistance from the rules applicable to Contingency Paid Employees, wherein at Item No.63, the post of ''Rain Gauge Reader'' is mentioned and it is classified as Class-IV post. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that the respondents have erred in retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years.
Prayer is opposed by Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. He submits that Rules of Contingency Paid Employee are not applicable to the petitioner. The post of ''Gauge Reader'' is not mentioned even int those Rules. Hence, the Government of Madhya Pradesh decided that if a particular post is not shown in the circular of the Government dated 09.11.2012, the employee shall retire on attaining the age of of 60 years.
No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The Rules applicable to the Contingency Paid Employees are admittedly not applicable to the daily rated employees. Petitioner was working as ''Gauge Reader'' whereas, the Item No.63 of the said Rules r e f l e c t s t h e p o s t o f R a i n G a u g e Readera. There is no material on record to show that both the posts are similar/identical. Thus, the Rule on the strength of which entire petitioner is based, is of no assistance to the petitioner. As per Government circular, it is clear that if classification of employee is not made, the employee shall retire on attaining the age of 60 years. As per this analysis, in my view, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents in retiring the petitioner at the age of 60 years. No relief is due to the petitioner in this petition. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No cost.