Bombay High Court
Dr. Manohar Martandarao Newaskar vs State Of Mah., Deptt. Of Medical ... on 27 June, 2017
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2979.11.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2979/2011
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2980/2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRIT PETITION NO.2979/2011
PETITIONER : Dr. Bhushan Vithobaji Mahadole,
Aged about 60 years, R/o 28-A, Pushpakunj
Society, Arni Road, Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of
Medical Education and Drugs,
Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Ayurved, Government of Maharashtra,
Khanna Constructions Building,
Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 18.
3. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Through its Registrar, Wani Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik - 4.
4. Shri Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal, Through its Principal.
5. Ayurved Seva Samiti,
C/o Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:46:16 :::
wp2979.11.odt
2
WRIT PETITION NO.2980/2011
PETITIONER : Dr. Manohar Martandarao Newaskar,
Aged about 60 years, R/o Near Ranade Ice
Factory, Shrie Layout, Yavatmal.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Department of
Medical Education and Drugs,
Through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Director of Ayurved, Government of Maharashtra,
Khanna Constructions Building,
Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 18.
3. Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
Through its Registrar, Wani Road, Mhasrul,
Nashik - 4.
4. Shri Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal, Through its Principal.
5. Ayurved Seva Samiti,
C/o Dayabhai Mavji Majithia Ayurved College,
Yavatmal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. H.N. Prabhu, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 27.06.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical
and the prayers made therein are also similar, they are heard together
and are decided by this common judgment.
wp2979.11.odt
By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the
orders of the respondent nos.4 and 5 retiring the petitioners from their
services on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners have also
challenged the Government Resolution, dated 30.4.2010 enhancing the
age of retirement of teachers working in Government Ayurvedic Colleges
from 58 to 60 years while not granting the said benefit to the teachers
working in Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges.
According to the petitioners, the petitioners were also
entitled to continue in service till they attained the age of 62 years.
According to the petitioners, as the State Government had by the
Government Resolution dated 30.4.2010, enhanced the age of retirement
of the teachers working in Government Ayurvedic Colleges from 58 to 62
years, the petitioners who were working in Government Aided Private
Ayurvedic Colleges were also entitled to continue in service till they
attained the age of 62 years. The petitioners had filed the writ petitions in
the year 2011 when the notice of retirement was served on them. The
petitioners have attained the age of 62 years in the year 2013. We had not
granted any interim relief in favour of the petitioners, permitting the
petitioners to work till the age of 62 years during the pendency of the writ
petitions and hence, the petitioners did not continue to work till 62 years.
wp2979.11.odt
The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the age of
retirement of the teachers working in Government Ayurvedic Colleges is
enhanced 62 years by the Government Resolution dated 30.4.2010 but
similar benefit is not granted to the teachers working in Private Ayurvedic
Colleges. It is submitted that though the cause for filing the writ petitions
is rendered infructuous insofar as the petitioners are concerned, it would
be necessary to direct the State Government to consider framing a policy
for granting benefit of enhancement of the age of retirement to 62 years
for the teachers working in Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges.
Mrs. Prabhu, the learned Assistant Government appearing
for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has denied the claim of the petitioners by
referring to the additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the
respondent nos.1 and 2 on 16.6.2017. It is submitted that the petitioners
were retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2011 and
they have crossed the age of 62 years in the year 2013. It is submitted
that there are four Government Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of
Maharashtra whereas there are 16 grant-in-aid Private Ayurvedic Colleges
in the State. It is submitted that the teachers working in the grand-in-aid
Colleges are paid salary as per the U.G.C. scale and also receive 25%
non-practicing allowance. It is submitted that the State Government is
incurring huge financial burden in respect of the employees like the
wp2979.11.odt
petitioners. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid and also in view
of the Government Resolution dated 28.7.1983 by which the services of
the teachers like the petitioners are governed, the age of retirement of the
petitioners would be 60 years only. It is submitted that the petitioners
have not challenged the said Government Resolution which still holds the
field.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears
that the cause for filing the writ petitions is rendered infructuous as the
petitioners had attained the age of 60 years in the year 2011 and have
attained the age of 62 years during the pendency of the writ petitions in
the year 2013. The petitioners did not continue to work as lecturers after
they were retired from service in the year 2011. We would therefore keep
the issue involved in these writ petitions open and dispose of the writ
petitions as the cause for filing the writ petitions in the case of the
petitioners is rendered infructuous.
Hence, by keeping the point in regard to the grant of benefit
of extension of age of superannuation to the lecturers working in the
Government Aided Private Ayurvedic Colleges open, we dispose of the
writ petitions with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
