( 1. ) ALL the aforesaid petitions involve common and identical issues, they are, therefore, heard and decided conjointly and concomitantly. In the aforementioned petitions the petitioners, who are all teachers working in various Government schools, are assailing the communications received by them on various dates informing them that they shall be superannuated from service on attaining the age of 62 years.

( 2. ) THE contention of the petitioners before this Court is that they are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 65 years in view of the amendment made by the State Government by the notification published in the M. P. Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 6-5-2011 amending the provisions of the M. P. Shaskiya Sewak (AdhiwarshikiAayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam of 1967') by the M. P. Shashkiya Sewak (Adhiwarshiki-Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam of 2011), (Amending Act No. 20/2011), whereby it is asserted that their age of superannuation has been enhanced from 62 to 65 years.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State by way of the aforesaid amendment in the Adhiniyam of 1967 has increased the age of superannuation of teachers to 65 years but the respondent authorities are totally ignoring the aforesaid amendments and are superannuating the petitioners on attaining the age of 62 years although they are entitled to continue in service upto the age of 65 years thereby illegally depriving the petitioners of the benefit of the amended provisions.

( 3. ) AT this stage, it is pertinent to note that some other petitions, filed earlier, had been disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioners therein claiming extension of the age of superannuation to 65 years. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court the State Government by order dated 31-10- 2011 rejected the representation filed on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in W.P No. 17532/2011 and the district level authority by order dated 29-10-2011 passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W. P No. 18179/2011, has also rejected the representations filed by the petitioner on the ground that the extension of age of superannuation by the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam of 2011 is not applicable to the petitioners therein and, therefore, the respondents have filed returns before this Court relying upon the orders of rejection dated 31-10-2011 in some of the present petitions. However, subsequently, as W.P. No. 19328/2011 and other matters have also been filed assailing the order dated 31-10-2011 and 29-10-2011 rejecting the representation by the authorities, this Court had directed the State to file a detailed reply which has been filed by them in W.P No. 14386/2011 (S) and has been adopted in all other cases.

( 4. ) IT is submitted by the learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State that the State, with a view to overcome the shortage of certain Government servants including teachers in Technical and Medical Colleges, has made the amendment in the Adhiniyam of 1967 clearly specifying therein that the extended age of 65 years for superannuation would be applicable only to certain category of Government servants and teachers. IT is submitted that a proper reading of the amendment itself makes it clear that the age of superannuation of School Teachers has not been increased and still remains to be 62 years and in such circumstances the claim of the petitioners seeking benefit of the extended age of superannuation of 65 years is misconceived and deserves to be rejected.

To properly appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to take into consideration the statement of objects and reasons of the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam of 2011 as well as the unamended provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1967.

( 5