Ramesh Baburao Patil v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 wp 5710.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5710 OF 2015 Ramesh Baburao Patil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5709 OF 2015 Subhash Nago Shelar .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5713 OF 2015 Narayan Madhav Khose .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5714 OF 2015 Chandrakant Daulatrao Patil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

2 wp 5710.15 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5715 OF 2015 Murlidhar Madhav Patil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5718 OF 2015 Dilip Pandit Patil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5719 OF 2015 Suresh Brijlal Patil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5722 OF 2015 Pitamber Bandhu Patil .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

3 wp 5710.15 Shri Paresh B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. M. Suryawanshi, Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, Smt. S. A. Dhumal, Shri B. L. Dhas, Shri K. G. Patil, Shri G. K. Thigle, Shri D. B. Bhange, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri A. B. Girase, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 09TH JUNE, 2015.

PER COURT :

.

In all these matters the petitioners are claiming arrears of salary from the date they completed 60 years of age and the date they were allowed to join pursuant to extension of age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 595.

2.

We have also heard the learned Assistant Government Pleaders and Mr. Girase, the learned counsel for the respondent/university.

3.

The issue is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty and others referred supra.

4.

In the light of that, we pass following orders.

4 wp 5710.15 5.

The respondents shall pay salary as admissible to the petitioners for a period as stated in prayer clause "B" after confirming itself the dates, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six (06) months from today. The amount paid by way of pension if any be deducted. The writ petitions accordingly are disposed of. No costs.

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 15