Naresh Rajaram Patil And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 14798 Bom

7-wp 1266-04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1266 OF 2004
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 844 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1266 OF 2004

Shri Naresh Rajaram Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Suresh S. Pakale for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

DATE : 8" OCTOBER, 2021.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for writ of certiorari on the ground of Government Resolution dated 27.02.2003 and seeks writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to implement the AICTE Package Scheme to the petitioners forthwith and to pay arrears in pay scale

since 01.01.1996.

4. The details of date of birth, date of first appointment and designation, date on which completed 60 years and date on which

completed 58 years is reflected as under:

7-wp 1266-04

Sr | Name Date of | Date of 1%] Date on | Date on No. Birth appointment | which which and completed | completed designation 60 years 58 years 1 Naresh R. Patil | 28.08.1946 | 14.06.1974 27.06.2006 | 27.06.2004 Lecturer 2 Prakash R. | 03.02.1946 | 12.01.1970 02.02.2006 | 02.02.2004 Diwan Lecturer 3 Shashikant G. | 12.08.1946 | 12.01.1970 11.08.2006 | 11.08.2004 Pathak Lecturer 4 Anand G. Desai | 10.12.1947 | 23.11.1974 09.12.2007 | 09.12.2005 Asst. Lecturer

5. Mr. Pakale, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to unreported judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court dated 18.11.2009 in Writ Petition No. 439 of 2008 in the case of Nikhil Shamrao Parandkar & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and would submit that the said judgment applies to the facts of this case. He also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court dated 13.04.2009 in Writ Petition No. 6030 of 2006 in the case of Dilip Krishnaji Kulkarni Vs. The State of Maharashtra

& Ors. in support of his submission.

6. We have perused the judgments relied upon by Mr. Pakale, learned counsel for the petitioners. This Court after adverting to the earlier judgments held that so far as the class of employees on or before 15.07.1981, their conditions of service are covered by Section 4 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. Proviso to section is specific in as much as that on the appointed date, there can be no variation in the age of retirement, post retirement benefits and other monitory benefits to the disadvantage of an employee by any rules. In other words, what the proviso sets out is that it is open to the Government to grant more

advantageous conditions of service including pay revisions but it is not

7-wp 1266-04 open to make any conditions of service which would be at disadvantage

to such employees. The retirement at the age of 58 when the age of

retirement was earlier 60 years, would clearly be disadvantageous.

7. This Court, accordingly, made the writ petition absolute in so far

as the employees who are in service before 15.07.1981.

8. In our view the judgments relied upon by Mr. Pakale, learned counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of thiscase. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned AGP strongly tried to distinguish the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners but could not

distinguish the said judgments.

9. We, accordingly, pass the following order:

(i) In so far as the prayer Clause (a) of the petition is concerned, since this relief is already granted by this Court in the judgment in the case of Nikhil Shamrao Parandkar (supra), the

same is not required to be granted again.

Gi) So far as the prayer Clause (b) is concerned, the writ

petition is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b).

(iii) Since each of the petitioners have already completed the age of 60 years as on date, they are deemed to be reinstated for attaining the age of 60 years and would be eligible to get monthly payment for the said period till the age of superannuation as 60 years and all consequential benefits according to law within eight

weeks from today.

10. The writ petition is made absolute. No order as to costs.

ARJUN ADAM. [ABHAY AHUJA, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]

Digitally signed by ARJUN MACHHINDRA AM

Date: 2021.10.12 11:29:33 +0530