Dismissed

Vimal Rukhabsa Bhure After Marriage Sau Vimalbai Narendra Ahale v. State of Maharashtra Department of Education Mantralaya Mumbai

Bombay HC18 Sept 2012WP/6444/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order rejecting the petitioner's application for age relaxation in government employment, holding the petition barred by laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

What the court decided

Vimal Rukhabsa Bhure After Marriage Sau… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp6444-11.order

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 6444 of 2011

¶4

Vimal Rukhabsa Bhure.

¶5

-vs-

¶6

State of Mah. through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.

¶7

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶9

Mr. A.S. Kilor, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, learned AGP for R-1 to 3. Ms. Nivedita Mehta, learned counsel for R-5 & 6.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH , JJ.

¶11

DATE : 18th September, 2012.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the communication issued by the Deputy Director of Education on 26.2.2004 holding that the condition of age cannot be relaxed in case of the petitioner.

¶13

It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 on the post of peon, prior permission from the appropriate authority was not sought for relaxation of age though the petitioner was overage at the time of her appointment. The Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of peon in the year 2000 on the condition that the petitioner seeks an appropriate order of condoning the criteria of age. The petitioner applied to the Deputy Director of Education. However, the said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 26.2.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that by a decision of the State Govt. dated 21.10.2010 the age condition was relaxed in case of 32 employees and hence the same may be relaxed in the case of the

¶14

wp6444-11.order

¶15

petitioner also.

¶16

The writ petition suffers from laches and the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, specially when the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. Firstly, there ought to have been a relaxation of condition of age before the appointment of the petitioner. Even if that was not done, the application for relaxation of the age criteria should have been made immediately after the appointment in the year 1984. The petitioner ought to have sought for relaxation of the age criteria within a reasonable time from the date of her appointment in the year 1984. The petitioner has however approached this court nearly 27 years after her appointment, when she is on the verge of retirement. The relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted only because the State Government has relaxed the condition of age in respect of 32 employees, more so when the case of the petitioner and those 32 employees is not similar.

¶17

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

Hirekhan

Vimal Rukhabsa Bhure After Marriage Sau Vimalbai Narendra Ahale v. State of Maharashtra Department of Education Mantralaya Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Vimal Rukhabsa Bhure After Marriage Sau Vimalbai Narendra Ahale v. State of Maharashtra Department of Education Mantralaya Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vani Ram Aietwar and Anor. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pri. Secy. Mumbai and Anor.

Mr. Jagannath Nagendrasa Kabadi Vs U.O.I. Thr. the Secty., AND3ORS

Amitkuma S/O Shrawan Apkurkar Vs Zilla Parishad, Thru Its C.E.O.

Smt. Pramila Wd/O Sureshkumar Mehta and Ors. Vs the Bank of Baroda Thr. Auth. Signatory and Ors.

Hemraj Vitthalrao Tirpurkar Vs the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr Its Divisional Controller Nagpur

Rafiq Mohammed Khan Rasul Khan, Malkapur, Buldhana Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secty,. Urban Dev. Dept. Mumbai and 2 Otrs