SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ramkumar Charmakar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is

heard finally.

2. The singular point needs determination in this case is regarding the age

of retirement of petitioner working as Sahayak Adhyapak in Adhyapak

Samvarg (cadre).

3. The petitioner was working as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III and by order

dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure RJ-1), he was absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak.

The respondents by order dated 18.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) retired the

petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years.

4. Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

having been absorbed as Sahayak Adhyapak, the petitioner's services are

governed by statutory rules namely Madhya Pradesh Panchyat Adhyapak

Samvarg (Employment & Conditions of Services) Rules 2008 made in

exercise of power confirmed under Sub Section 1 of Section 95 r/w Sub

Section 2 of Section 70 of M.P. Panchyat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj

Adhiniyam 1993. As per Rule 8 (d), r/w Schedule-I, of Rules of 2008, the

petitioner's post (Sahayak Adhapak) is classified in 'Adhyapak Samvarg' and,

therefore, he was entitled to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on

completion of 62 years of service. The respondents ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top