wp2979.11.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2979/2011
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2980/2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.2979/2011
PETITIONER : Dr. Bhushan Vithobaji Mahadole,
Aged about 60 years, R/o 28-A, Pushpakunj
Society, Arni Road, Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of
Medical Education and Drugs,
Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Ayurved, Government of Maharashtra,
Khanna Constructions Building,
Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 18.
3. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Through its Registrar, Wani Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik - 4.
4. Shri Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal, Through its Principal.
5. Ayurved Seva Samiti,
C/o Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:15 :::
wp2979.11.odt
2
WRIT PETITION NO.2980/2011
PETITIONER : Dr. Manohar Martandarao Newaskar,
Aged about 60 years, R/o Near Ranade Ice
Factory, Shrie Layout, Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of
Medical Education and Drugs,
Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Ayurved, Government of Maharashtra,
Khanna Constructions Building,
Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 18.
3. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Through its Registrar, Wani Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik - 4.
4. Shri Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal, Through its Principal.
5. Ayurved Seva Samiti,
C/o Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 27.06.2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and the prayers made therein are also similar, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:15 :::
wp2979.11.odt 3 By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of the respondent nos.4 and 5 retiring the petitioners from their services on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners have also challenged the Government Resolution, dated 30.4.2010 enhancing the age of retirement of teachers working in Government Ayurvedic Colleges from 58 to 60 years while not granting the said benefit to the teachers working in Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges.
According to the petitioners, the petitioners were also entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 62 years. According to the petitioners, as the State Government had by the Government Resolution dated 30.4.2010, enhanced the age of retirement of the teachers working in Government Ayurvedic Colleges from 58 to 62 years, the petitioners who were working in Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges were also entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 62 years. The petitioners had filed the writ petitions in the year 2011 when the notice of retirement was served on them. The petitioners have attained the age of 62 years in the year 2013. We had not granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioners, permitting the petitioners to work till the age of 62 years during the pendency of the writ petitions and hence, the petitioners did not continue to work till 62 years. ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:15 :::
wp2979.11.odt 4 The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the age of retirement of the teachers working in Government Ayurvedic Colleges is enhanced 62 years by the Government Resolution dated 30.4.2010 but similar benefit is not granted to the teachers working in Private Ayurvedic Colleges. It is submitted that though the cause for filing the writ petitions is rendered infructuous insofar as the petitioners are concerned, it would be necessary to direct the State Government to consider framing a policy for granting benefit of enhancement of the age of retirement to 62 years for the teachers working in Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges.
Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has denied the claim of the petitioners by referring to the additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 on 16.6.2017. It is submitted that the petitioners were retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2011 and they have crossed the age of 62 years in the year 2013. It is submitted that there are four Government Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of Maharashtra whereas there are 16 grant-in-aid Private Ayurvedic Colleges in the State. It is submitted that the teachers working in the grand-in-aid Colleges are paid salary as per the U.G.C. scale and also receive 25% non-practicing allowance. It is submitted that the State Government is incurring huge financial burden in respect of the employees like the ::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:15 ::: wp2979.11.odt 5 petitioners. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid and also in view of the Government Resolution dated 28.7.1983 by which the services of the teachers like the petitioners are governed, the age of retirement of the petitioners would be 60 years only. It is submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the said Government Resolution which still holds the field.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the cause for filing the writ petitions is rendered infructuous as the petitioners had attained the age of 60 years in the year 2011 and have attained the age of 62 years during the pendency of the writ petitions in the year 2013. The petitioners did not continue to work as lecturers after they were retired from service in the year 2011. We would therefore keep the issue involved in these writ petitions open and dispose of the writ petitions as the cause for filing the writ petitions in the case of the petitioners is rendered infructuous.
Hence, by keeping the point in regard to the grant of benefit of extension of age of superannuation to the lecturers working in the Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges open, we dispose of the writ petitions with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:15 :::