Class III Sthayi Karmis cannot be retired at 60; they are entitled to 62-year superannuation and full back wages.

The petitioners were initially appointed as daily-rated employees in the Water Resources Department and were subsequently classified as permanent employees (Sthai Karmi). They were working as Field Assistant and Copyist against Class III posts in Sub-Division Seoni, Madhya Pradesh.

The State Government enhanced the general age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years by notification dated 31 March 2018, amending the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Superannuation Age) Act, 1967.

Despite this amendment, the petitioners were retired upon attaining 60 years by order dated 30 August 2018. They sought quashing of the retirement order, reinstatement, continuation in service up to 62 years, and consequential reliefs.

During the pendency of the petition, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the State could not prescribe different retirement ages for Class III and Class IV Sthai Karmis.

Whether the petitioners, being Class III Sthai Karmis, could lawfully be superannuated at 60 years notwithstanding the enhancement of the retirement age to 62 years and the Division Bench ruling invalidating the distinction between Class III and Class IV Sthai Karmis.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to 100% back wages for the period during which they were prematurely retired before attaining the lawful age of superannuation.

The Court applied the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Superannuation Age) Act, 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, which held that the State could not prescribe different retirement ages for Class III and Class IV Sthai Karmis where their pay scales and other relevant service conditions were not materially different.

The Court also relied on Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 663, which recognises that an employee prevented from working by an unlawful premature-retirement order is entitled to consequential benefits, including wages, and that the principle of “no work, no pay” cannot be invoked by the employer in such circumstances.

It further followed the Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 743 of 2026, which awarded 100% back wages in a similar case.

The Court held that the petitioners’ premature retirement was based on the State’s impermissible distinction between Class III and Class IV Sthai Karmis. Since the applicable policy provided the same pay scale and substantially similar service conditions, there was no rational basis for fixing the retirement age of Class III Sthai Karmis at 60 years while allowing 62 years for other employees.

Following the binding Division Bench ruling, the Court declared the retirement order dated 30 August 2018 unsustainable and set it aside.

On back wages, the Court found that the petitioners were willing to continue working but were prevented from doing so solely because of the unlawful retirement order.

Applying Shobha Ram Raturi and the subsequent Division Bench decision, it concluded that the petitioners were entitled to full salary for the period from premature retirement until the date on which they would have actually retired.

It held that the petitioners were entitled to 100% back wages for the intervening period between their premature retirement and their lawful date of superannuation.

The respondents were directed to pay the requisite salary/back wages within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The petition was accordingly disposed of.