Smt. Vijaya W/O Krishnarao Kale ... vs The State Of Mah. And 3 Others

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 6311 Bom
Judgement Date : 24 October, 2016

Bombay High Court
Smt. Vijaya W/O Krishnarao Kale ... vs The State Of Mah. And 3 Others on 24 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
     2410WP4215.05-Judgment                                                                         1/3


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4215    OF    2005

     PETITIONERS :-                 1. Smt.Vijaya W/o Krishnarao Kale, Aged about
                                       57   years,   Occ:  Physical   Education  Director,




                                                                   
                                       resident of Amravati. 

                                    2. Sudhakar   Namdeo   Ambhore,   age   57   years,
                                       Occupation - Lecturer, resident of Amravati. 




                                                   
                                             ...VERSUS... 

     RESPONDENTS :-
                               ig  1.     The   State   of   Maharashtra,   through   its
                                          Secretary,   Higher   and   Technical   Education
                                          Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 
                             
                                   2.     University   Grants   Commission,   through   its
                                          Secretary,   Bahadurshah   Zafar   Marg,   New
                                          Delhi-2. 
      

                                   3.     Government   Vidarbha   Institute   of   Science,
                                          Through its Principal, Amravati. 
   



                                   4.     The   Union   of   India,   through   its   Secretary,
                                          Ministry  of   Human  Resources  Development
                                          (Department of Education, New Delhi. 





                                   5.     Director   of   Higher   Education,   State   of
                                          Maharashtra, Pune. 

     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr.A.J.Dhobale, counsel h/f Mr. R.S.Parsodkar, 





                                     counsel for the petitioner.
     Mr. A.A.Madiwale, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5. 
                        Mrs.U.A.Patil, counsel h/f Mrs. M.P.Munshi, 
                            counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 4. 
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                            CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                        KUM. INDIRA JAIN,   JJ.

DATED : 24.10.2016 ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:35:06 ::: 2410WP4215.05-Judgment 2/3 O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the age of superannuation of the petitioners is 60 years and the respondent No.3 should continue the petitioners in service till they attain the age of 60 years.

2. Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, states that the issue involved in this case was involved in Writ Petition No.6529 of 2005 (Shri Shripati Bhiva Kamble v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and this Court had by the order dated 30/09/2005, dismissed the writ petition 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). It is stated that the case of the petitioners would stand covered by the aforesaid order dated 30/09/2005. It is stated that in view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. On a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191 and the order dated 30/09/2005 in Writ Petition No.6529 of 2005, it appears that the issue stands answered against the petitioners in view of the aforesaid judgment and order. It is held in the aforesaid judgment that the ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:35:06 ::: 2410WP4215.05-Judgment 3/3 University Grants Commission recommendations, fixing the age of retirement are directory in nature and the state government and the concerned university could fix the age of retirement as 58 years in the government colleges.

4. Hence, for the reasons recorded in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 191 and the order dated 30/09/2005 in Writ Petition No.6529 of 2005, we dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

                                 JUDGE                                   JUDGE 

     KHUNTE
      
   






    ::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016                          ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:35:06 :::