Smt Madhavi Madhukar Ghogare vs Union Of India And 2 Others

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 6265 Bom
Judgement Date : 21 October, 2016

Bombay High Court
Smt Madhavi Madhukar Ghogare vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 21 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
     2710WP6516.05-Judgment                                                                         1/2


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 6516    OF    2005

     PETITIONER :-                        Smt.Madhavi   Madhukar   Ghogare,   aged
                                          about   57   years,   Occupation   :   Head   of   the




                                                                   
                                          Department,   Department   of   Physical
                                          Education,   Vasantrao   Naik,   Government
                                          Institute   of   Arts   and   Social   Science,   Near
                                          R.B.I.Square, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 




                                                   
                                             ...VERSUS... 

     RESPONDENTS :-
     Deleted as per 
                          1.
                               ig         Union of India, through its Secretary,
                                          Ministry of Human Resource Development
     order dtd.10/08/2007                 (Department of Education), New Delhi. 
                             
                                   2.     State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
                                          Higher and Technical Education Department,
                                          Mantralaya, Annexe Building, Mumbai-32.
      

                                   3.     Vasantrao Naik Government Institute of Arts
                                          and Social Science, Near R.B.I. Square, Civil
   



                                          Lines, Nagpur. 

     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      None for the petitioner.
           Mr. A.M.Kadukar, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.2. 





                                 None for the respondent No.3. 
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                        KUM. INDIRA JAIN,   JJ.

DATED : 27.10.2016 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the age of retirement of the petitioner is 62 years and the petitioner should be continued in service till she attains the age of 62 years.

::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:12:04 :::

2710WP6516.05-Judgment 2/2

2. It is stated on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the issue involved in this stands answered against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6529 of 2005 (Shri Shripati Bhiva Kamble v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) wherein this court has by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191 (T.P.

George and others v. State of Kerala and others) held that the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in regard to the age of retirement are not binding on the State Government and the State Government is entitled to continue the employees till the age of 60 years, despite the recommendations of the University Grants Commission in respect of the extension of the age of retirement.

3. Since the issue involved in this case stands answered against the petitioner by the aforesaid judgment, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                                 JUDGE                                       JUDGE 

     KHUNTE





    ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016                              ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:12:04 :::