Dr. Laxman Bhimrao Sarkate vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4193 Bom

 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

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

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