The High Court constituted a larger Bench on reference under Rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules and Orders to resolve a conflict between two Single Judge decisions regarding the retirement age of daily wager employees.[27000156900001] (!) (!) The petitioner, a daily wager (Labour/Meth/Gangman), challenged his termination at age 60, claiming entitlement to continue until 62 years as a Class IV work-charged employee under the M.P. Shaskhiya Sevak Adhivarshiki Aayu Tritiya Sanshodhan Adhyadesh, 1998.[27000156900002] The State countered that as a daily wager, not part of work-charged or contingency services, he was governed by a circular limiting service to age 60, with no right to 62 years.[27000156900003][27000156900004]

The petitioner argued parity with Class IV employees entitled to age 62.[27000156900005] The State contended daily wagers hold no civil post, lack appointment under recruitment rules, and thus have no statutory right to a fixed retirement age.[27000156900006] Tracing civil service history from the Government of India Act, 1915 (s.96B(1)) and 1935 (s.240(1),(2)), to the Constitution (Arts. 310, 311), the Court noted civil servants hold office at the government's pleasure, with protections only for those appointed to posts under rules; daily wagers, lacking such appointment or post, are casual and unprotected. (!) (!) (!) [27000156900007][27000156900008][27000156900009][27000156900010] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Civil posts require sanctioned positions; casual/daily wage employment does not confer tenure rights or retirement benefits absent rules. (!) [27000156900012][27000156900013] The Adhyadesh, 1998 benefits Class IV employees holding posts but not daily wagers without status or posts.[27000156900014] Daily wagers thus lack entitlement to age 62; the government/department may fix their service age.[27000156900015][27000156900016]

The reference was answered holding the view in Mathura Prasad Yadav (2010 (3) MPLJ 323) correct—daily wagers are ineligible for age 62 and cannot claim a specific limit absent rules—overriding the contrary view; Vishnu Mutiya (2006 (1) MPLJ (FB) 23) applies only to work-charged employees, not daily wagers.[27000156900016] (!)