Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Nelu S/O Keshavrao Bahekar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10044 Bom

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10044 Bom
Judgement Date : 29 September, 2023

Bombay High Court
Nelu S/O Keshavrao Bahekar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 29 September, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
                                                                                                      9-wp- 6519-23.odt
                                                            1/3



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

                       CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6519 OF                                         2023

                  Dr.Nelu Keshavrao Bahekar -Vs-The State of Maharashtra and ors.

         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Office notes, Office Memoranda of
                 Coram, appearances, Court's orders                                       Court's or Judge's Orders.
                 or directions and Registrar's orders.
         ------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Mr. A.P.Raghute, counsel for the petitioner.
                                       Mr. A.S.Fulzele, Addl.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                                       Mr.B.G.Kulkarni, counsel for respondent No.4 .




                                              CORAM :A.S.CHANDURKAR &
                                                     MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED :29.09.2023.

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 on the prayer for interim relief.

2. The petitioner by relying upon the provisions of Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011 prays that she be permitted to continue in service till the age of 65 years. The petitioner is to attain the age of superannuation of 62 years on 30.09.2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it was necessary for the respondent No.4 to take necessary steps to enable assessment of the petitioner's performance for the age of superannuation to be extended to 65 years, such steps were not taken by the College.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of learned

Kavita 9-wp- 6519-23.odt

Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12761 of 2019 (University of Mumbai Vs. Satish V.Ratnaparkhi) decided at the Principal Seat. It is also submitted that at no point of time did the College make any grievance that the petitioner has not submitted relevant documents with regard to self assessment. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to discharge her duties till the age of 65 years.

4. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the College by submitting that the manner in which the age of superannuation can be extended to 65 years has been laid down in Government Resolution dated 23.11.2011. As per Clause 4 thereof, various compliances are required to be done by the concerned teacher. Inviting the attention to the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply, it is submitted that the petitioner sought issuance of fitness certificate only on 20.09.2023, which should have been in fact was required to be done much prior in time. Similarly, she has also submitted proposal for leave encashment on 14.09.2023 and sought to withdraw the amount of provident fund on 23.09.2023. The documents in that regard are annexed in the affidavit-in-reply. It is also asserted that for the last five years, the petitioner failed to submit her performance appraisal reports for each year. This was relevant in view of such specific requirement in the Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011. It is thus submitted that for want of these steps being taken by the petitioner, she has no right to seek extension of time.

Kavita 9-wp- 6519-23.odt

5. We find prima facie that the requisite steps that have to be taken to enable performance appraisal have not been undertaken by the petitioner within the time- frame prescribed by Government resolution dated 23.11.2011. In addition, these steps taken for seeking withdrawal of the amount of the provident fund on 23.09.2023 coupled with submission of application for fitness certificate belatedly on 20.09.2023 are the reasons not to hold the petitioner entitled for any interim relief. In case, the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition she would be entitled to all the benefits flowing from the relief that could be granted while deciding the writ petition. Hence, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.

6. Stand over after four weeks for further consideration.

                                           JUDGE                                 JUDGE




Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
              Kavita
Date: 30/09/2023  16:44:09
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter