SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Sujata V. Manohar and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 497 of 1994. D/d. 9.12.1998.

State of M.P. and others - Appellants

Versus

Babulal Singh - Respondent

Madhya Pradesh Shasakiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, Section 2(1-a) and Explanation - Superannuation - Age of - Words and phrases "Teacher" - Provison in Section 2(1-a) the age of for superannuation is sixty years - Held, not applicable to Deputy District and Mass Eduction Officer (formerly known as District Extension Educator) in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of State of M.P. - Because the nature of the work and duties of the respondent does not fall with Section 2(1-a) of the Adhiniyam of 1967.

[Para 5]

ORDER

Sujata V. Manohar, J. - The respondent was appointed as District Extension Educator in the Department of Health & Family Welfare, State of Madhya Pradesh on 20-6-1967. His designation was changed to Deputy District and Mass Education Officer w.e.f. 10-6-1975. The respondent was superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 31-7-1992.

2. The respondent contends that his age of superannuation should have been 60 years and not 58 years because the age of superannuation for teachers under the M.P. Shasakiya Sevak (Adhiwarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 was 60 years. Section 2(1-a) of the M.P. Shasakiya Sewak (Adhiwarshiki Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967 is as under:

"2. (1-a) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3), every Government teacher shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years:

Provided that a Government teacher whose date of birth is 1st of a month shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the preceding month on attaining the age of 60 years.

Explanation."For the purpose of this sub-rule, teacher means a Government servant by whatever designation called, engaged in teaching in an educational institution including a technical or medical institution run by the Government."

3. The explanation, therefore, makes it clear that it is only those who are engaged in teaching in an educational institution including a technical or medical institution run by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, who are entitled to the benefit of the age of 60 years as the age of superannuation.

4. The respondent has filed an affidavit in the present SLP in which he has set out at length various kinds of duties of the Department of Public Health & Family Welfare in the State of Madhya Pradesh. He has emphasised that there are various officials in this Department who have to carry out programmes for instructing and educating the public in family planning and health. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent was responsible for organising various camps for propagating family planning and these would include arranging audio-visual programmes, seminars or lectures to educate the public in family planning and health.

5. We fail to see how this activity would fall under the definition of "teacher" as explained in Section 2(1-a). It is clear that the respondent was not imparting any teaching in an educational institution or in any technical or medical institution. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was not right in giving to the respondent the benefit of the age of 60 years as the age of superannuation. The Tribunal seems to have relied upon some other cases pertaining to some other persons who were given the benefit of the age of 60 years as the age of superannuation. Looking, however, to the nature of the work and duties of the respondent, he does not fall within Section 2(1-a) of the Adhiniyam of 1967.

6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The appellants shall release the post-retiral benefits to the respondent as expeditiously as possible.

Appeal allowed.