Bombay High Court
Laxman Ragho Raundal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 3 July, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
jsn 1 14-WPs-4962-4591-4963-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4962 OF 2016
Laxman Ragho Raundal
Age 63 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/at. Gangapur Road, Nashik,
Dist. Nashik ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. K.R.T. Arts, B.H. Commerce and
A.M. Science College, Maratha Vidya
Prasarak Samaj,
Gangapur Road,
Shivaji Nagar, Nashik 422 002.
3. The Higher and Technical Educational
Department through its Executive
Officer, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Deputy Secretary
Academic Branch, Pune University,
Pune - 411 007.
5. The Divisional Joint Director,
Higher Education, Pune University,
Pune - 411 007. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4963 OF 2016
Yashwant Damu Bedse
Age 63 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/at. 10, Prerana Apartment,
Shrirang Nagar, Gangapur Road,
District Nashik 411 013. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:34:23 :::
jsn 2 14-WPs-4962-4591-4963-2016.doc
2. K.R.T. Arts, B.H. Commerce and
A.M. Science College, Maratha Vidya
Prasarak Samaj,
Gangapur Road,
Shivaji Nagar, Nashik 422 002.
3. The Higher and Technical Educational
Department through its Executive
Officer, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Deputy Secretary
Academic Branch, Pune University,
Pune - 411 007.
5. The Divisional Joint Director,
Higher Education, Pune University,
Pune - 411 007. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4591 OF 2016
Tulshiram Keda Birari ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Maharaj Shivajirao Gaekwad Arts,
Science and Commerce College,
Malegaon, Nashik 422 002.
3. The Higher and Technical Educational
Department through its Executive
Officer, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
4. The Deputy Secretary
Academic Branch, Pune University,
Pune - 411 007.
5. The Divisional Joint Director,
Higher Education, Pune University,
Pune - 411 007. ... Respondents
Mr. Rohan Sonawane, Adv. for the Petitioners in all the above
Petitions.
Mr. C.P. Yadav, for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in all the above Petitions.
Mr. Rajendra Anubhule, Respondent No.4 in all the above Petitions.
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:34:23 :::
jsn 3 14-WPs-4962-4591-4963-2016.doc
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 3 JULY 2017.
J U D G M E N T :- (Per Riyaz I. Chagla J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith in above Writ
Petitions. Taken up for hearing by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners in the three Petitions were recruited by
Respondent No.2 (K.R.T. Arts, B.H. Commerce and A.M. Science
College at Nashik) in Writ Petitions Nos. 4962 and 4963 of 2016 and
(Maharaj Shivajirao Gaekwad Arts, Science and Commerce College, at
Nashik) in Writ Petition No. 4591 of 2016 as Associate Professors.
The Petitioners in the three Petitions were due to retire from services
on the attainment of age of 60 years and upon their retirement the
Respondent No.2 had made a representation to Respondent No.4 (The
Deputy Secretary, Academic Branch, Pune University, Pune, in all the
three Petitions) proposing to grant extension of superannuation age of
the Petitioners from 60 years to 62 years. By circular dated 27th
September 2012 (in Writ Petition No. 4962 of 2016) and circular
dated 16th August 2012 (in Writ Petitions Nos. 4963 of 2016 and
jsn 4 14-WPs-4962-4591-4963-2016.doc
4591 of 2016), the Respondent No.3 (the Higher and Technical
Education department through its Executive Officer, Maharashtra,
Mumbai) extended the superannuation age of professors working in
educational institution under the control and supervision of the
Respondent No.5 (The Divisional Joint Director, Higher Education,
Pune) University, Pune from 60 years to 62 years. The
superannuation age of the Petitioners were accordingly extended from
60 years to 62 years. The Petitioners had resumed services upon the
circular being issued but had not been paid remuneration for the
period when the Petitioners had retired till the issuance of the circular.
Respondent No.3 despite issuing circular dated 30th December 2012
for extension of superannuation age, the Respondent No.1 had not
paid dues of the Petitioners for the said period. The Petitioners have in
their respective Petitions sought appropriate directions from the Court
to pay the Petitioners their unpaid salary for the said period of three
months.
3. The counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the
issue involved in the three Petitions is no longer res integra, in view of
the judgment of this Court (Bench at Aurangabad) in the case of
jsn 5 14-WPs-4962-4591-4963-2016.doc
Snehal Arun Borse Vs. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1. The said
judgment had followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarti & Ors. 2 and held
that the Petitioners are entitled for the salary for the period for which
he was not allowed to work and that the Respondent in that case was
directed to pay salary to the Petitioners for the extended period of
service for which he was not allowed to work, expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order.
The Respondents were also directed to calculate pensionary benefits
considering the Petitioners to be in continuous services till the
extended date of retirement including arrears for which the Petitioner
may be entitled due to extended date of the retirement. The Writ
Petition was accordingly disposed of.
4. We are of the considered view that the judgment of this
Court at Aurangabad Bench referred above squarely applies and the
present Petitions will have to be allowed on the following terms:-
1 WP No. 9544 of 2014 decided on 19th December 2014.
2 (2013) 7 SCC 595.
jsn 6 14-WPs-4962-4591-4963-2016.doc
O R D E R
a. It is held and declared that Petitioners are entitled for
salary for the period for which they were not allowed to
work. Respondent No.2 College which is duly served is
directed to submit the salary bills of the Petitioners for the
period for which they were not allowed to work to
Respondent No.5 within a period of four weeks from
today. On receipt of such bills, the Respondent No.5 shall
process the same and make payment to the Petitioners
within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
b) The Respondents shall calculate pensionary benefits
considering the Petitioners to be in continuous service till
the extended date of retirement including arrears which
the Petitioner may be entitled due to extended date of
retirement.
c. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA J.) ( B.R. GAVAI J.)
