Dr. Uday S/O Rajeshwar Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2964 Bom

WP  2531/11                                              1                           Judgment

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION No. 2531/2011
Dr.Uday s/o Rajeshwar Chaudhari,
Aged Major, Occu.: Associate Professor,
R/o Post Colony, near Shreeniwas 
Colony, Wardha-442 001.                                                         PETITIONER

                                     .....VERSUS.....
1.    The State of Maharashtra,
      Through Secretary,
      Department of Higher Education,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 0032.

2.    The Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj
      Nagpur University,
      Ravindranath Tagore Marg, Nagpur,
      through its Registrar.

3.    The Joint Director of Higher Education,
      Nagpur Division, Old Morris College,
      Nagpur.

4.    Shiksha Mandal, Wardha,
      A Society Registered under the
      Societies Registration Act, 
      having its Office at Jamnalal Bajaj Marg,
      Wardha.

5.    Jankidevi Bajaj College of Science,
      Through its Principal,
      Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Wardha.                                               RESPONDENTS

   Shri S. Sahare, Advocate holding for Shri S.S. Sanyal, counsel for the petitioner.
 Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3.
            Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

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

                                                               8                  JUNE,     2017.
                                        DATE        :            TH

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

By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction against

the respondents to extend the age of his retirement from 60 to 62 years in

view of the Government Resolutions dated 25.02.2011 and 05.03.2011.

WP 2531/11 2 Judgment

2. We are not inclined to grant the relief claimed by the

petitioner. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on

31.05.2011. Though this Court had issued Rule in the writ petition, the

prayer for interim relief was rejected. During the pendency of the writ

petition, the proposal of the petitioner for extension of the age of

retirement was rejected. The petitioner has surpassed the age of 62 years

in the year 2013. In the circumstances of the case, specially when the

petitioner's proposal is rejected and the petitioner did not work for the

period after his retirement till he attained the age of 62 years, it would

not be proper to consider granting relief to the petitioner. The petition is

liable to be dismissed in the circumstances of the case.

3. Hence, it is dismissed as such with no order as to costs. Rule

stands discharged.

              JUDGE                                           JUDGE

APTE