STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus HARI DATT SHARMA

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 04-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
HARi DATT SHARMA 
NOVEMBER 4, 1992 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Civil Services : 
C 
Madhya Pradesh State Fundamental Rules. 
D 
F.R.56, Sub-Rule (1-a) and M.P. Shaskiya (Adhiwarshkiya Adhi-
niyam) 1987 -Retirement age-Superintendent Deaf Mute and Blind 
School--Whether 'teaching post'-{)uties of supervisory nature-Held respon-
dent rightly retired at 58 years as post was non-teaching post. 
The respondent in the appeal after due selection by the State Public 
Service Commission was appointed in 1965 as a Superintendent in a Deaf 
Mute and Blind School. He was thereafter promoted and posted as Deputy 
Director, and in 1989 be was further promoted to the rank of Joint 
Director in the Social Welfare Department. He eompleted the age of 58 
E years in January, 1991 when according to the decision of the appellant be 
had to retire. According to the Rules - FR 56, Sub-Rule (1-a) - the age of 
retirement in the department was 58 years excepting for teachers who were 
to continue in service till 60. 
F 
The respondent assailed the order of retirement before the State 
Administrative Tribunal relying upon the Explanation to the Rule which 
allowed bis claim to continue in service upto the age of 60 years and held 
that be cannot be retired at 58 years. 
In the State's appeal to this Court, it was contended that the post of 
G Superintendent in Deaf Mute and Blind School to which the respondent 
was initially appointed in 1965 was not a 'teaching post' and he could not 
therefore claim the benefit of the Explanation to the Rule. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
H 
HELD: l. The parties to the appeal have referred to and relied upon 
352 
t. 
STATE OF M.P. v. HARi DATT SHARMA[SHARMA, J.] 
353 
the advertisement No. 9/1965 issued by the State Public Service Commis-
A 
sion inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Superintendent 
Deaf Mute and Blind School. Paragraph 3 thereof mentions the duties 
attached to the post, and when examined closely, indicate that they were 
supervisory in nature and not teaching. The Explanation to the Rule 
therefore does not come to the aid of the respondent and be was therefore 
rightly retired on 31.1.1992. [354-G; 355-DJ 
B 
2. The Original Application filed by the respondent before the State 
Administrative Tribunal is therefore dismissed. In case the respondent 
was paid for performing any duty after the date ~f his retirement, be shall 
not be asked to refund the same. [355-E, Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4733 of 
1992. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.19"2 of the Madhya 
Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior in Original Application D 
No. 2932 of 1991. 
Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
Vivek Gambhir and S.K. Gambhir for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
SHARMA, J. 1. By the impugned order the Madhya Pradesh State 
Administrative Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent to con-
tinue in service up to the age of 60 years and has held that· he cannot be 
retired at 58 only. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. F 
Special leave is gr3nted. 
2. The respondent was holding the post of Deputy Director when he 
was promoted as Joint Director, Social Welfare Department in 1989. He 
completed the age of 58 years in January, 1991 when according to the 
decision of the appellant he had to retire. According to the Rules the age G 
of retirement in the department is 58 years excepting for teachers who are 
to continue in service till 60. It is not disputed that the posts of Deputy 
Director and Joint Director are not teaching posts and the respondent 
cannot take advantage of the higher age of retirement on that account. 
However, the respondent relies upon the Explanation to the Rule which is H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A in the following terms :-
B 
c 
"Explanation : For purpose of this sub-Rule "Teacher" 
means a Government Servant, by whatever designation 
called, appointed for the purpose of teaching in an educa-
tional institution run by the Government including tech-
nical or medical educational institution in accordance with 
the recruitment rules applicable in such appointment and 
shall also include the teacher who is appointed to an 
administrative post by promotion or otherwise and who 
has been engaged in teaching for not less than 20 years 
provided he holds a lien Collegiate{fec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.