Allowed

Mrs. Anjali W/O Anil Palnitkar v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development and 4 Others

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014CAW/964/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a fresh hearing of the writ petition seeking recognition of the petitioner's retirement age as 62 years instead of 60 years, the Court took judicial notice of a State Government order dated 05.03.2013, which approved the extension of her retirement age. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to grant retiral benefits by considering her retirement age as 62 years. The co

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to grant retiral benefits considering the petitioner's retirement age as 62 years. Civil Application disposed.

Mrs. Anjali W/O Anil Palnitkar Vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1545-11

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1545/2011

¶5

(ANJALI A. PALNITKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

- - - - Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.A. Chauhan h/f Shri S.K. Mishra, A.S.G.I. for the R-1 & 2. Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.G.P. for the R-3 & 4.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶11

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : APRIL 25, 2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the age of superannuation of the petitioner would not be 60 years but, is 62 years. The petitioner has filed C.A.W. No.964/2014 stating therein that during the pendency of the petition, by an order dated 05.03.2013, the State Government accepted the proposal for extension of the retirement age of the petitioner from 60 to 62 years and the petitioner would retire on 31.03.2013.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a disposal of the writ petition in view of the order dated 05.03.2013 granting approval to the proposal for retiring the petitioner at the age of 62 years and seeks consequential benefits like continuity of service and pension.

¶15

On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the order dated 05.03.2013, it appears that the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service and pensionary benefits by considering her age of retirement to be 62 years.

¶16

WP1545-11

¶17

¶18

In view of the subsequent development, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant the retiral benefits to the petitioner by considering her age of retirement to be 62 years. No order as to costs. The civil application No.964/2014 also stands disposed of.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

APTE

Mrs. Anjali W/O Anil Palnitkar v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Anjali W/O Anil Palnitkar v. Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development and 4 Others

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

Tarachand Keshaorao Rokde. Vs State of Maharashtra and Another.

Tarachand Keshaorao Rokde. Vs the City of Corpn. and Others.

Haridas Murari Sarve Vs State of Mah. and Others

Mrs. Anjali W/O Anil Palnitkar Vs Union of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development and 4 Others

Sanjay Madhusudan Bapat Vs Smt. Snehal W/O Sanjay Bapat

Manjiri W/O Mohan Dhomne Vs Mohan S/O Shankarrao Dhomne