Dismissed

Dr. Anita S. Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Dept.of Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Feb 2016WP/11733/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking an extension of two years in service after retirement at sixty years of age. The court declined to direct continuation of service but directed the Joint Director, Higher and Technical Education to take a decision on the petitioner's claim for PhD increment arrears within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Joint Director to decide on PhD increment arrears; discarded claim for supplementary retirement.

Dr. Anita S. Kumar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

10wp11733-14.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 11733 OF 2014

¶5

Dr. Anita S. Kumar … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher & Technical Education Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others. … Respondents.

¶8

¶9

Mr. S. A. Sawant, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State/ Respondent Nos. 1 & 8. Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 to 7.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 29^th FEBRUARY, 2016.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶15

2 It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner retired as Assistant Professor/Lecturer on 31^st May, 2014 on completion of 60 years of age. The Petitioner expected extension of two years but he did not get it. The petitioner has prayed for directions for extension of two

1/3

Borey

10wp11733-14.doc

spb/

years term and consequent benefits of extension and past service rendered by the petitioner.

¶21

3 The learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the Petitioner has been paid gratuity on 20^th May, 2015 and Provident Fund on 05.12.2015. The petitioner is getting pension alongwith the benefits of commutation of pension. The learned AGP further submits that the issue concerning the PhD increment arrears remained to be dealt with by the Accountant General. It is submitted that recently the Management forwarded necessary proposal which has been received by the Accountant General.

¶22

4 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the arrears towards PhD increment comes to Rs. 2,55,955/which remained to be pad to the Petitioner. As regards the other benefits, the learned counsel for the Petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner has received those benefits.

¶23

5 Learned counsel Mr. Rui Rodrigues on behalf of the University submits that the Management has forwarded necessary proposal and it is now for the Accountant General to take appropriate decision.

2/3

Borey

spb/

10wp11733-14.doc

6 This petition is pending since the year 2014. We have perused the record. In the facts, we are not inclined to issue direction for continuation of the Petitioner in service for further period of two years.

¶29

7 The Joint Director,Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai, Region Mumbai, shall take appropriate decision on the Petitioner's claim towards arrears of PhD increment within four weeks, on its own merits. We do not express any opinion on merits of the claim of the Petitioner.

¶30

8 With the above directions, the Petition is disposed

¶31

of.

¶32

3/3

¶33

Borey

Dr. Anita S. Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Dept.of Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anita S. Kumar v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Dept.of Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.

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

Shri. Santosh Abhimanya Bhosale and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Public Works Dept. and Ors.

Chandrika Paresh Thakkar and Ors. Vs Oswal Shikshan and Rahat Sangh and Ors.

Mr. Rausaheb Khanderao Powar and Ors. Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Saida Begum Daud Saheb and Anr. Vs Education Officer

A. Qadeer a. Mannan Bijapure, through Poa, Sathi Bashir Ahamd Bashamiya Shaikh Vs the President, M. a. Pangal Anglo Urdu High School and Junior College of Arts and Science and Ors.

Poonam Tekchand Verma Vs Atomic Energy Education Society and Ors.