Back
2021 Supreme(MP) 28
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sheel Nagu, Anand Pathak, JJ.
Salil Kumar Saxena – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 271 of 2020
Decided On : 08-02-2021
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Superannuation and Retirement Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
Superannuation - Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 - [Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikiya Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018] - [Regulation 13, Compulsory Retirement Age Rules, 1967, Amended Rules, 1972] - The court discussed the interplay of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikiya Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 and Adhyadhesh, 2018 vis-a-vis Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962. It held that the Regulation 13 and its amended provision deserves to be applied in respect of age of superannuation and that the letter of finance department cannot be pressed into service in view of the amended Regulation 13 of the Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962. The Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur upheld the findings of the single Bench in respect of superannuation and dismissed the appeals preferred by the corporation, holding the age of superannuation of employees of the corporation to be 62 years.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in M.P. Warehousing and Logistic Corporation, was aggrieved by being superannuated at the age of 60 despite the amendment of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikiya Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018, which enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was wrongly superannuated and denied legitimate claims due to the misinterpretation of the amended Rule 13 of the Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962. It held that the petitioner is entitled to back-wages and reinstatement, treating him in continuous service up to 62 years of age.
Issues: The issues revolved around the misinterpretation of the amended Rule 13 of the Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 and the entitlement of the petitioner to back-wages and reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant regulations and legal principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing that the petitioner was wrongly denied his legitimate claims and is entitled to full benefits, including monetary benefits, subject to any change in law and supervening factors.
Final Decision: The appeal of the appellant was allowed, and the age of superannuation of the appellant was treated as 62 years. The appellant was directed to be reinstated forthwith and entitled to all service benefits, including monetary and pensionary benefits accrued to him in accordance with the law, treating him in continuous service up to 62 years of age.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anvesh Jain, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent:Ankur Mody, Learned Additional Advocate General and Shailendra Singh Kushwaha, Learned Counsel
JUDGMENT :
Anand Pathak, J.
1. Instant appeal is being preferred against the order dated 09.04.2019 passed by the learned writ court in Writ Petition No. 3742/2019, whereby writ petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed at the motion stage itself without any issuance of notice over other side.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2018 by which the respondent No. 2 intended to superannuate the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years and did not extend the benefits of 62 years to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that Statement Government has amended the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikiya Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 and by way of amendment dated 11.07.2018 enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 years to 62 years.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that State Government has amended the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikiya Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 and passed the Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 by way of gazette notification dated 11.07.2018.
4. The petitioner is holding the post of Sub-Engineer in M.P. Warehousing and Logistic Corporation, Branch Guna. The date of birth of petitioner is 09.02.1959 and therefore, after completion of 60 years of age, respondents were causing him to retire w.e.f. 28.02.1990 whereas Finance Department of the State Government vide order dated 27.04.2018 already issued direction to the Corporation/Mandal regarding extension of the age of superannuation as per financial condition. It is further submitted that by way of amended portion of clause 13 of the Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962, the policies of State Government are to be applied mutatis mutandis to the corporation's employees in respect of age of superannuation/retirement.
5. Interpreting the same, single Bench at Indore vide order dated 12.04.2019 in W.P. No. 1569/2018 (Ameeruddin Akolawala Vs. State of M.P. and another) passed the order while considering the interplay of Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sewak (Adhiwarshikiya Aayu) Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 2018 and Adhyadhesh, 2018 vis-a-vis Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 and held that the Regulation 13 and its amended provision deserves to be applied in respect of age of superannuation and letter of finance department cannot be pressed into service in view of the amended Regulation 13 of the Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962. The said order was put to challenge alongwith other identical matters and Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in bunch of writ appeals (W.A. No. 1088/2019 and other identical matters) decided vide order dated 15.11.2019, upheld the findings of single Bench in respect of superannuation and dismissed the appeals preferred by the corporation. In other words, age of superannuation of employees of corporation was held to be 62 years.
6. In the backdrop of above factual matrix, grievance of the petitioner is that learned writ court erred in passing the impugned order without considering the import of Regulation 13, therefore, caused illegality.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 filed reply contents of which are more tangential then substantive, but prayer is in respect of dismissal of this appeal.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. and perused the record.
10. This is the case where appellant/petitioner is seeking redressal of the grievance whereby he was superannuated after attainment of 60 years of age whereas Regulation 13 of Madhya Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation Staff Regulation, 1962 mandates in categorical terms that it would be applicable mutatis mutandis as per State Government Policies. Amended portion of the policy is reproduced for ready ref
