c- MtGiMrooym^ciFJUDieamnffiAr^a DnflSK»<BENGH CQRAAI; HON'aLESHf^Hd.. OMMTU.GA & EErmffligfi ESPONDENTS WiHSs^OKito.StS^SSt. Ratemla} KtehcAia, agetf ab<»* 5 ycare, S^ l^ Duldwan ttote^a, Accountant, Janpad Pairelwya^ Bagbahar, Di^. MaliasamuBifep^ v^»y& 1. StateofChhatB^artt, Through P.S. %r»lw^rt & Rural Dewtopmen^ MEBtfralaya^ DKS Blawan.RaNpur^.G^ 2. Commtsaoner, P»icha^rt & Rural Dwslqpmant Deipisttnw^ f^aSfttw 3. <3nef®6eCTittwOBcw Janpadl^inehayat.^Gte^tKtfara.Dfett. Mahasanitmd^.S.) 4. Pn^ctent, Janpad Psuittiayat, Bagllahara, dlsft. MtfK»amtmtt^.G^- Preserit: ShriKNKTOBtKNlUH.TOurtseltwBiepeWonw. Shrt^-S. (&idllhswaha, GJlt. for ttiaStadsa. ORALOre>ER tPassed on 16U> Mareh, M07) The foUowing oral prder of Uw Cou»t yas pwsed by HJ..Dattu,CJ. The peUBoner was woridng »an Accowitart jn Janpad Panchayat, BE^bahar, Dfehict MahE®amund. hi thi»pettiCTyiSeeKimter Artictes226^7 ofttie<^>nsBh^W otilnda, Ui&(»tBkmwis^ foflowing reliefe. S'V. 41 Pli! /&- '(Q The Rute 33 (1) be dedared as ulba vinis being discriminatory. (ii) The respondents be directed to incresse the age of supsrannuatfon of tte lilce employees of Panchayat from 58 to 60 yeare. Oii) The responcterts be directed ftirther to absoib Uie petitioner as an emptoyee for a period oftow yeare—or up to hls age <rf 60 yeare wth all (inanctel and mon^aiy beneBs for which the psUfioner is entiUed. (iv) Any (rther relief, order or direetions, whteh ttus Hon'ble Gourt deems fit aixl proper in the preseirt circumstanc of the case, may abo lahdly be grarrted." (2) DuringthependencyofthiswrttpeUUon.therespondentehave amended ttie Rute 33 (1) of the M.P. (GhhatUsgarh) Pandayat Service (Recruitment and General ConditkMis ofService) Rules 1999 (IheRutes' fbr shorQ underwhteh the r^rementag^ ofal ttie employees wortdr®in Panchayat is fixed as 60 yeare. ^-. . • • . ' . (3) Inwewofthisamendment.GhaltengeoflhepetitiCTwrinsofeffSK Rute 33 (1)0fflie Rutes bai^i ulba vffes, unc<xretitutkmal,-dfeCTniinatMy ete. need not be conshtered by us. There is yet anpther prayer ^r (he petittoner and that has been vociferously aflgued t^ Shri IQshore Bhaduri, teamed counsel appearingfor Itiepetittonsr. Atthe oite^ le* us state that ttie submisston made by the laamed counsel for tt» pettioner does n<rt merilcoreidCTaUon, but slnce has been aigued by Shri Kishor®Bhaduri, weintend to answw ftesame. i~». 42 ••?% !&: {4) Admittedly, the peGttofwr was an Accourtant.i.e. he was not a teadiing stsrff or a Class-IV emptoyee. The nde ttiat was prevailbig when the writ pefflkm was filed spwifically cat^orized two <ypes of em^iyaes i.e. empl<^ees oUwrthan teaching steiff&Ctass-lV emptoyBes an<t emptoyees who are teaching staffandCla%-IV. For the first isat^oiy, the aye of rsBrement was ^ yeare and sewnd categoty the ag^ vf retiremerrtwas 60 yeare. (5) SincethepefilionerwaswortdngasanAccountant.hewasastod to retire at the age of 58 yeare. The Ride has been aniencted prospecSvely by altowjng all the emptoyees woridng n Pandayat to r^re at fhe age of 60 years. Since Uw nrte has been gfven ^fed to prospecfively, benefit <rfthrt nile cwiiKrt be cldended to a peraon who has already rdired from the samce after rtteAm^i the age of superannuatfon underthe nde that was adsting at the parBcutar point of tlme. (Q In viewoftheaboTO,submisstonof1heteamedcounselappearir^ for the petiBoner requlres to be'rejeeted smdaccwdiigily^Js repcted. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd//- V.KShrivastava Judge