Writ petition seeking extension of service for a retired associate professor was dismissed as her claim was not covered under the new Government Resolution.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction for service extension granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(3)-WP-12752-16.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12752 OF 2016
Dr. Mrs. Rajlakshmi W/o Vishnu Barve ..Petitioner Versus
State of Maharashtra and others
..Respondents
Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 25th JUNE, 2019
P.C.
1] Regretfully, the Writ Petition which was filed on 12th
August 2016 could not be taken up for even a preliminary hearing and
today is the first date when the Writ Petition has been listed for a preliminary hearing.
2] The Petitioner was working as an Associate Professor
under the 5th Respondent affiliated to the 4th Respondent University.
3] Age of superannuation of the teaching fraternity notified
by the University and applicable to it’s affiliated or constituent
colleges was 60 years. By a Government Resolution dated 25.02.2011,
BGP. 1 o f 2
(3)-WP-12752-16.doc .
extension in service by two years was permissible upon evaluation of the performance of the teaching faculty. The Petitioner attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 17.05.2016. Her case for extension in service was being considered when a Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 was issued revoking the Government Resolution dated 25.02.2011. The said Resolution specifically records that those who have been conferred benefit of extension in service shall continue to avail the benefit and those whose cases are pending for consideration would not be entitled to continue in service. The said clause in the resolution has not been challenged.
5] Since Petitioner's case for extension in service was under consideration when Government Resolution dated 12.07.2016 was promulgated, no benefit as prayed for can be granted to the Petitioner. We cannot direct her service to be extended by two years. Even otherwise, said two years' period came to an end on 17.05.2018.
6] The Petition is dismissed.
N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE
BGP. 2 o f 2
Dr. Mrs. Rajlakshmi W/o Vishnu Barve
State of Maharashtra
Pradeep Nandrajog
N. M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
