Dismissed

Dr. Pushpa Raosaheb Machale @ Dr. Pushpa Baburao Somwanshi v. the Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2014LPA/86/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Letters Patent Appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Aurangabad dismissed the appellant's challenge to her mandatory retirement at age 58 as Deputy Registrar. The court held she did not fall within the statutory definition of 'teacher' and found no Article 14 violation regarding differential retirement ages for teaching versus non-teaching staff.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; pending civil applications, if any, stood dismissed.

Dr. Pushpa Raosaheb Machale @ Dr. Pushpa… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

lpa8612.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.86 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3263 OF 2011

¶4

Dr.Pushpa d/o Raosaheb Machale @ Dr.Pushpa w/o Baburao Somwanshi

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Registrar, Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.S.Chaudhari, advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. For Respondents No.4 to 6. Respondent No.7 deleted.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE :18^th June, 2014

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 Appellant is assailing the decision rendered by learned Single Judge confirming the order passed by the University and College Tribunal.

¶14

2 The appellant was appointed as Deputy Registrar in Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, and on her attaining age of 58 years, she has been directed to retire on superannuation.

¶15

3 The appellant contends that since she has been derived from the category of teachers or that the qualifications

¶16

{2}

¶17

lpa8612.odt

¶18

required for making appointment to the post of Deputy Registrar are equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for making appointment to the post of teacher, she shall be continued in service till the age of 60 years. The University & College Tribunal has not accepted the argument and referring to the definition of “teacher”, recorded in Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, proceeded to turn down the appeal presented by the appellant. Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, defines “teacher” as under:

¶19

2(34) “Teacher” means full-time approved professor, associate professor, assistant professor, reader, lecturer, librarian, (Principal, Deputy or Assistant Librarian and Documentation Officer in the University & College Librarian.) Director or Instructor of Physical Education in any University department, conducted, affiliated or autonomous college, autonomous institution or department or recognized institution in the University.

¶20

4 The post of “Deputy Registrar” is not included in the definition of “teacher”, as reproduced above. The petitioner has experience of the post of Research Associate and according to her, that would bring her within the definition of term “teacher”. This argument is not acceptable for the reason that “Research Associate” is not included in the definition of “teacher” as contemplated under Section 2(34) of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994.

¶21

5 The petitioner contends that the discrimination in the matter of age of retirement of members of teaching and non

¶22

{3}

¶23

lpa8612.odt

¶24

teaching staff is impermissible and violative of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶25

6 The teaching staff is different and distinct category than non teaching staff. There is no discrimination amongst the employees of same category working in the University. There may be difference in providing higher age of retirement to the members of teaching staff considering non availability of candidates to function as teachers or to devote their time in academic activities. Since there is no discrimination amongst the employees of same category of the University, the argument relating to violation of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution is not sustainable. The Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of substance.

¶26

7 Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. In view of disposal of L.P.A., pending Civil Applications, if any, stand dismissed.

¶27

V.L.ACHLIYA JUDGE

¶28

R.M.BORDE

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

adb/lpa8612

Dr. Pushpa Raosaheb Machale @ Dr. Pushpa Baburao Somwanshi v. the Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Pushpa Raosaheb Machale @ Dr. Pushpa Baburao Somwanshi v. the Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyajit Shivajirao Nipanikar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nitin Kishor Kalunkhe Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Kusumtai Sevabhavi Sikshan Sanstha, Parbhani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Magan Visram Sasake (Dhangar) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tulshiram Eknathrao Kolhe Vs Shri Shrikant Deshpande and Others

Rafia Ahhed Late Mohammed Khan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others