Dr. Mrs. Aarti W/O Ashok Saoji vs The State Of Mah. Thr. Its ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6312 Bom

     2410WP4425.05-Judgment                                                                         1/3


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4425    OF    2005


     PETITIONER :-                        Dr. Mrs. Aarti W/o Ashok Saoji, aged about




                                                                   
                                          57   years,   Occupation-Professor   in   Botany,
                                          Institute of Science, Nagpur. 

                                             ...VERSUS... 




                                                   
     RESPONDENTS :-              1)       The   State   of   Maharashtra,   through   its
                                          Secretary,   Higher   and   Technical   Education
                               ig         Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 

                                 2)       University   Grants   Commission,   through   its
                                          Secretary,   Bahadurshah   Zafar   Marg,   New
                             
                                          Delhi-2. 

                                 3)       Institute of Science, Ravinder Tagore Marg,
                                          Nagpur, Through its Rgistrar. 
      


                                 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

2410WP4425.05-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 petitioner has sought a

declaration that the age of superannuation of the petitioner is 60 years

and the respondent No.3 should continue the petitioner in service till

she attains 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 petitioner 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 petitioner in view of the aforesaid

judgment and order. It is held in the aforesaid judgment that the

University Grants Commission recommendations, fixing the age of

retirement are directory in nature and the state government and the

2410WP4425.05-Judgment 3/3

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