Bombay High Court
Arjun S/O Hargovind Ghiya vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp5966.13.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5966/2013
PETITIONER : Arjun s/o Hargovind Ghiya,
Aged about 59 years, Occu : Service,
R/o Karnal Bagh, Opposite Model Mills,
Old Gate, Nagpur -440 032.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra
through Director of Education (Higher)
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 001.
2. The Joint Director of Education (Higher)
Maharashtra State, Nagpur, Tahsil &
District, Nagpur.
3. The Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University, Nagpur through its
Registrar.
4. The Committee constituted for Performance
Review of Lecturers through its Member
Secretary, the Controller of Examinations,
R.T.M., Nagpur University, Nagpur.
5. Bhalerao Science College, Saoner,
through its Principal, Main Road, Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Pushkar Ghare, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 08.06.2017
wp5966.13.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the
petitioner is entitled to the extension of the age of superannuation from
60 to 62 years. The petitioner has challenged the minutes of the meeting
of the respondent no.4 - Performance Review Committee dated
23.8.2013 refusing to recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of
extension.
The petitioner was working as an Associate Professor in
Chemistry in the respondent no.5 - College and attained the age of
superannuation, i.e., 60 years on 30.11.2013. Since the State Government
had taken a policy decision to extend the age of superannuation of
lecturers and professors in the Universities and Colleges from 60 to 62 as
per the Resolutions dated 25.2.2011 and 5.3.2011, the petitioner also
sought for the extension of his age of superannuation. The respondent
no.5 - College sent the necessary papers in respect of the claim of the
petitioner for grant of extension to the Performance Review Committee of
the respondent no.3 - University. Since the Performance Review
Committee had not taken the decision in the matter of extension of age of
retirement of the petitioner till the petitioner was about to retire from
services, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking the aforesaid
relief. When this writ petition came up for admission, by our order dated
wp5966.13.odt
28.11.2013 we permitted the respondent no.5 to continue the petitioner
in service and directed the other respondents to look into the
representation of the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition,
the respondent no.4 - Performance Review Committee considered the
proposal of the petitioner and did not find favour with the claim of the
petitioner for extension of the age of retirement. According to the
Performance Review Committee, since some of the main conditions that
were liable to be fulfilled by the petitioner while seeking the extension of
age of retirement were not fulfilled, the case of the petitioner could not
have been recommended. Though the Performance Review Committee
has rejected the proposal of the petitioner, the petitioner was continued in
services till he completed the age of 62 years.
Shri Ghare, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the Performance Review Committee was not justified in rejecting the
proposal of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Performance Review
Committee had wrongly rejected the proposal of the petitioner though
most of the conditions that were required to be fulfilled while seeking the
extension of services from 60 to 62 years were fulfilled by the petitioner.
It is submitted that while granting approval to the proposal of several
similarly situated lecturers and professors, the Performance Review
Committee had rejected the proposal of the petitioner. It is submitted that
wp5966.13.odt
in the circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has worked till he
attained the age of 62 years, a direction may be issued against the State
Government to grant the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period
during which the petitioner has worked and also direct the respondents to
grant the pensionary benefits by considering that he retired on attaining
the age of superannuation, at the age of 62 years.
Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the State Government submitted that it was not necessary
for the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for
extension of the age of retirement as the Performance Review Committee
had rejected the proposal of the petitioner. It is submitted that only if the
Performance Review Committee recommends the case of the lecturer or
professor, the State Government would be required to consider passing an
order extending the age of retirement.
Shri Puranik, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.3
and 4 supported the order of the respondent no.4 - Committee. It is
submitted that the Six Member Performance Review Committee has
considered the proposal of the petitioner and has taken a decision that the
claim of the petitioner could not be recommended. It is submitted that the
reliance placed by the petitioner on the orders passed by the Performance
Review Committee in the case of other lecturers and professors is not well
wp5966.13.odt
founded as in each of the orders of the Performance Review Committee,
there is no similarity.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the order of the Performance Review Committee in the case of
the petitioner, we do not find that it would be proper to interfere with the
order of the Performance Review Committee, in exercise of the writ
jurisdiction. The Six Member Performance Review Committee has
considered the proposal of the petitioner and has rejected the same by
observing that some of the conditions required to be fulfilled for seeking
the extension are not fulfilled. It would not be for this Court to sit in
appeal over the judgment of the Performance Review Committee and hold
that the Performance Review Committee has discriminated between two
similarly situated employees, unless it is obvious. We have perused the
orders of the Performance Review Committee, in the cases of the other
employees and on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner. However, the fulfillment of the conditions in one of the cases
cannot be compared with the fulfillment of the conditions in the case of
the other candidates. Certain criterion is not fulfilled by one candidate,
whereas the other candidate does not fulfill some other criterion. The
Expert Committee has rejected the proposal of the petitioner and we do
not find anything on record to explicitly show that the petitioner is
wp5966.13.odt
discriminated. We are not inclined to accept the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner that the Performance Review Committee has
deliberately denied the relief to the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be
permitted to submit so, as the petitioner has not alleged mala fides against
any of the Members of the Performance Review Committee. We therefore
reject the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the
Performance Review Committee has purposely rejected the proposal of
the petitioner while recommending the cases of other similarly situated
lecturers and professors. Though we are not inclined to set aside the order
of the Performance Review Committee by sitting in appeal over the
judgment, in the circumstances of the case we are inclined to issue a
direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the
period during which he worked as an Associate Professor after he attained
the age of superannuation on 30.11.2013.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly
allowed. The respondents are directed to release the arrears of salary in
favour of the petitioner for the period during which he has served as an
Associate Professor with the respondent no.5 after 30.11.2013 in terms of
the interim order of this Court. The arrears of salary may be released in
favour of the petitioner within three months.
wp5966.13.odt
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
