Dnyaneshwar Bhaurao Amale vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4224 Bom

                                                                                        wp1787.15.odt

                                                      1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.1787/2015

     PETITIONER:                Dnyaneshwar Bhaurao Amale, 
                                Aged about 62 years, Occu : Retired, 
                                R/o Nikunj Apartment, C-3, Plot No.203, 
                                Hilltop Ramnagar, Nagpur - 33.

                                                ...VERSUS...

     RESPONDENTS:      1.  State of Maharashtra, 
                            Through its Principal Secretary 
                            Higher and Technical Education, 
                            Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 

                                2.  Director, Higher Education, Pune.     

                                3.  Joint Director, Higher Education, 
                                     Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 

                                4.  Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj, 
                                     Nagpur University, Through its Registrar, 
                                     Nagpur. 

                                 5.  Annasaheb Gundewar College, 
                                      Through its Principal, Katol Road, 
                                      Nagpur - 440013.
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri T.S. Deshpande, Counsel for the petitioner 
                       Shri I.J. Damle, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    CORAM  :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK AND
                                                                      ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : 10.07.2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against the

respondent nos.1 and 2 to extend the benefit of the Government

wp1787.15.odt

Resolution dated 23.11.2011 to the petitioner so as to extend the age of

his superannuation from 60 to 62 years. The petitioner has also sought a

direction against the respondents to pay the consequential monetary

benefits to the petitioner.

The petitioner was sought to retire on 30.11.2012 on

attaining the age of superannuation, i.e. 60 years. In view of the

Government Resolution, dated 23.11.2011, the petitioner applied for

extension of the age of his superannuation. The case of the petitioner was

referred to the Performance Review Committee of the University and it is

the case of the petitioner that the Committee had recommended that the

age of retirement of the petitioner could be extended from 60 to 62 years.

Since the State Government had not taken any decision on the proposal of

the petitioner, the petitioner had filed the instant petition. During the

pendency of the writ petition, the State Government rejected the proposal

of the petitioner by the order dated 6.7.2015. The said order is also

impugned in the instant petition.

It appears on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties

that the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Though the

claim of the petitioner was recommended by the Performance Review

Committee to the State Government, the State Government had not

passed a favourable order in respect of the petitioner. After the writ

wp1787.15.odt

petition was filed on 19.3.2015, the petitioner continued to work as an

Instructor in the respondent no.5 - College. There is however a serious

dispute about the capacity in which the petitioner worked as an

Instructor, as according to the petitioner, he was working as a regular

Instructor till he attained the age of 62 years, whereas it is the case of the

respondent no.5 - College that the petitioner worked only as a

contributory Instructor and the petitioner was paid the honorarium for his

services as a contributory Instructor. It appears that the State Government

had rejected the proposal of the petitioner as the petitioner had satisfied

only two of the criteria of the 11 that were required to be considered by

the University. It was further found that though it was mentioned in the

order of the Performance Review Committee that the petitioner was a

State Awardee Instructor, a document in support of the said claim was not

tendered before the State Government. Though the State Government

asked the University and the Performance Review Committee to tender

explanation in regard to the absence of material pertaining to the State

Level Award conferred on the petitioner, the Performance Review

Committee had not tendered the explanation. Though it is the case of the

University that the query of the Government was answered, the

Government was not in receipt of the same. In the aforesaid set of facts,

the State Government had rejected the proposal of the petitioner. After

wp1787.15.odt

the proposal of the petitioner was rejected, the State Government has, by

the Government Resolution dated 12.7.2016 decided not to grant the

benefit of extension of age of superannuation to the employees including

the employees that are involved in the litigations.

In the aforesaid set of facts, the action on the part of the

State Government in rejecting the proposal of the petitioner cannot be

faulted. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to

costs. Rule stands discharged.

                  JUDGE                                                                JUDGE




     Wadkar