Class III Sthayi Karmis cannot be retired at 60; premature retirement warrants 100% back wages.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee on 14 December 1986, classified as a permanent employee in 2003 and again classified in 2016. He continuously worked as a Copyist in a Class III post.

The State Government enhanced the age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years by notification dated 31 March 2018, amending the Madhya Pradesh Shashikiya Sewak (Adhivarshikiya Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, with effect from that date.

Despite the amendment, the respondents relied on a General Administration Department circular dated 3 May 2017 and issued an order dated 6 March 2019 retiring the petitioner on attaining 60 years.

The petitioner challenged the retirement order under Article 226 of the Constitution and sought reinstatement up to the age of 62 years, along with consequential reliefs.

He was ultimately retired on 31 August 2019.

Whether a Class III permanent daily-wage employee or “Sthayi Karmi” was entitled to superannuation at the age of 62 years, rather than 60 years, following the State Government’s enhancement of the retirement age.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to 100% back wages for the period between his premature retirement at 60 years and the date on which he would have attained the age of 62 years.

The Court applied the Madhya Pradesh Shashikiya Sewak (Adhivarshikiya Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967, as amended by the notification dated 31 March 2018, which substituted 62 years for 60 years as the age of superannuation.

It relied on the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1715 of 2024 and connected matters, decided on 2 February 2026, holding that the State could not prescribe different retirement ages for Class III and Class IV “Sthayi Karmis” where there was no material difference in pay or service conditions.

The Court further relied on Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 663, which held that where an employee was wrongfully prevented from rendering service, the employer could not invoke the “no work, no pay” principle to deny consequential wages.

It also followed the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 743 of 2026, which awarded 100% back wages in comparable circumstances.

The Court held that the respondents’ reliance on the 3 May 2017 circular was untenable because the subsequent statutory amendment had enhanced the retirement age to 62 years.

Applying the Division Bench’s reasoning, the Court found no rational basis for distinguishing between Class III and Class IV “Sthayi Karmis” when they had the same pay structure and substantially similar service conditions.

The petitioner’s retirement at 60 years was therefore contrary to the governing legal position and was set aside.

On back wages, the Court held that the petitioner had been prevented from working solely because of the respondents’ erroneous interpretation of the applicable policy. Consequently, the respondents could not rely on “no work, no pay”; consistent with Shobha Ram Raturi, the petitioner was entitled to full wages for the period of involuntary exclusion from service.

It held that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service until attaining 62 years and directed the respondents to pay him 100% salary/back wages for the period from 31 August 2019 until the date on which he would have attained the age of 62 years.

The payment was directed to be made within four months from production of a certified copy of the order. The petition was accordingly disposed of.