0707WP972.15-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 972 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Dr.Laxman Bhimrao Sarkate, Aged 60 years,
R/o 129, Surendra Nagar, West High Court
Road, Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy
and Fishery Science, Mantralaya, Mumbai-
32.
2. Chancellor of Maharashtra Animal and
Fishery Science University, Raj Bhavan,
Malabar Hill, Mumbai-35.
3. Vice Chancellor of Maharashtra Animal and
Fishery Science University, Futala Lake
Road, Telangkhedi, Nagpur-1.
4. Registrar, Maharashtra Animal and Fishery
Science University, Futala Lake Roa,
Telangkhedi, Nagpur-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Ashutosh Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.H.N.Prabhu, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Pankaj A. Jibhkate, counsel for the respondent No.3 & 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
ARUN D. UPADHYE
, JJ.
DATED : 07.07.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:09:27 ::: 0707WP972.15-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 petitioner has challenged the notice of his retirement dated 27/11/2014 as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents to continue the petitioner on the post of Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Science till he attains the age of 62 years.
According to the petitioner, though the Cabinet had taken a decision on 10/02/2015 to extend the age of retirement of the employees in the veterinary colleges from 60 to 62 years, the respondents had illegally sought to retire the petitioner from service at the age of 60 years by the notice dated 27/11/2014. It is submitted that when the age of retirement of the employees in the agricultural universities is 62 years, there is no reason as to why the age of retirement of the employees working in the university of veterinary sciences should not be extended.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1, states that though the Cabinet may have taken a decision for the extension of the age, it was later on decided that the decision should not be implemented. It is stated that the decision of the Cabinet was not implemented and it was decided that the age of ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:09:27 ::: 0707WP972.15-Judgment 3/3 retirement of the teachers in the university of veterinary sciences should be 60 years only. It is submitted that the cause for filing the writ petition has become infructuous as no interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner and during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had attained the age of 62 years.
In the circumstances of the case, we find that the cause for filing the writ petition is rendered infructuous. The petitioner had sought the extension of his services till the age of 62 years. The petitioner has attained the age of 62 years during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner was not continued in services after the age of 60 years in the absence of any interim order in favour of the petitioner. Also, as stated above, since the Cabinet decision was not implemented, the government did not take any decision of extending the age of superannuation of the employees of the university of veterinary sciences.
In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:09:27 :::