← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/4711/2013dismissed

Raghavendra Bhimrao Deshpande v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Higher And Technical Education Dept And ORS

2018-03-19Hon'Ble Smt. Justice S.S. Jadhav,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ranjit More.2 pages

Mhi WP-4711-13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4711 OF 2013 Raghavendra Bhimrao Deshpande Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Respondents Ms.Pranjali M. Bhandari, for the Petitioner.

Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP, for the State.

Mr. Rui A. rodrigues a/w Mr. P.Khosla for respondent No.2. Mr. Arvind Aswani a/w Ms. Minal J. Channani i/b. Mr. J.S.Cjhandnani for respondent No.3.

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,JJ.

DATE :19th March, 2018.

P.C. :

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2.

The petitioner by this petition is seeking a declaration that his age of superannuation stands extended. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the Respondents to pay him the salary for the relevant period i.e. till the extended date of retirement. 3.

Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated on 1.6.2011. In terms of the Government Resolution dated 23.11.2011, the

Mhi WP-4711-13.doc petitioner's case was recommended for extension of service for a period of two years from the age of 60 to 62. The recommendation came for consideration before the Government and by an order dated 20.8.2013, the petitioner's request for extension of service was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not fulfilling minimum four criteria out of the eight criteria. 4.

As stated above, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 1.6.2011. The petitioner has also completed the age of 62 years on 1.6.2013 and the petitioner's case for extension of service came to be rejected on 20.8.2013. 5.

The fact remains that the petitioner has not worked during the period for which he claims extension in terms of the Government Resolution dated 23.11.2011. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the petitioner's prayer for grant of salary for the extended period. The petition is without any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.

[SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.] [RANJIT MORE,J.]