Bombay High Court
Atul S/O. Chandrakant Waghmare vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 9 August, 2024
Author: Nitin W. Sambre
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
906wp4653.24.odt 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4653 OF 2024
(Dr. Atul s/o Chandrakant Waghmare .vs. The State of Maharashtra and others)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
And Registrar's Orders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.P. Raghute, Advocate for the petitioner.
.........
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 09.08.2024.
Heard Shri A.P. Raghute, learned counsel, appearing for the
petitioner.
2. The issue involved in the petition for adjudication is at
which age the petitioner is to be superannuated: 60 or 65? However,
he drew our attention to clause 2.12 of the Notification issued by the
All India Council for Technical Education on 01.03.2019 and
contended that pursuant to said clause, his age of superannuation
is 65.
3. Clause 2.12 of the All India Council of Technical Education
Notification dated 01-03-2019 whereby the All India Council for
Technical Education Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum
Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff
such as Library, Physical Education and Training & Placement
Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance
of Standards in Technical Education (Degree) are produced, it
contemplates the retirement age of all the faculty members and the
principals of the technical institutions should be sixty-five years.
4. To substantiate his contention that the age of
superannuation should be sixty-five years and not sixty years, he has
placed reliance on Clause 2.12 of the aforesaid Regulations and
support is also drawn from the Division Bench Judgment of this Court
in the matter of Lalit Rajendra Gajanan v. Vidyavardhani, through its
Secretary and others, [2021 SCC OnLine Bom. 3649]. According to
him, the contrary view taken by the Single Bench at Nagpur in
Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society v. Dr. Mir Sadique Ali and others in
Writ Petition No.5944/2022 has been stayed on 31-07-2023 in Special
Leave Petition No.15958/2023 by the Apex Court.
5. As such, he would urge that the order impugned whereby
directing superannuation of the petitioner on 31.07.2024 in view of
the completion of sixty years cannot be said to be sustainable in law.
6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 23.08.2024.
7. Shri D.P. Thakare, learned Additional Government Pleader,
waives service of notice for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Shri Nitin
Lambat, learned Counsel, waives service of notice for respondent no.3.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we are prima facie
satisfied that the case for interim relief is made out.
9. That being so, we direct the respondents to maintain the
status quo in relation to the service of the petitioner.
10. To be heard along with Writ Petition No.3800 of 2024.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
Gulande
Signed by: A.S. GULANDE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/08/2024 15:47:33
