Chandrakant Digambarrao Chidrawar And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11235 OF 2014 CHANDRAKANT DIGAMBARRAO CHIDRAWAR AND ANOTHER

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Gunale V.D.

AGP for the Respondents State: Mr. K. J. Ghute Patil Advocate for respondent No.4 : Mr. S. S. Chillarge ...

CORAM

: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & V. L. ACHLIYA , JJ.

DATE :

30th January, 2015 PER COURT :

1.

Limited grievance is made in the present writ petition. Though the petitioners were given benefit of extension of age of retirement from 60 to 62 years, they are not paid salary for the period they attained age of 60 years till the period the orders were issued giving them benefit of extension of age of retirement. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are entitled to the salary for the said period. The delay in issuance of order of extension of age is at the behest of respondents. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of Apex court in the case State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dayanand Chakrawarthy & others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 595. 2.

The issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. referred supra. The dates are not disputed. The petitioner No.1 completed age of 60 years on 1st December, 2011, the petitioner No.2 on 1st September, 2012. The orders were issued by the respondent 1/2

authorities giving them benefit of extension of age of retirement on 20th March, 2013. Salary for the period from 01.12.2011 in case of petitioner No.1 and from 01.09.2012 in case of petitioner No.2 till 20th March, 2013 has not been paid. As the delay was not on the part of petitioners, the petitioners shall be entitled to the salary for the said period as is held by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. referred supra. 3.

Learned counsel for the respondent- employer states that the salary bills are already submitted. In light of that, the respondents shall process the salary bills in respect of the petitioners for the period from 1.12.2011 in case of petitioner No.1 and from 01.09.2012 in case of petitioner No.2 till 20th March, 2013 and If there is no other legal impediment, shall pay the salary to the petitioners from the date they had attained age of 60 years till the order of extension of age of retirement was passed i.e. 20.03.2013.

The said proposal of salary bill shall be processed expeditiously and preferably within three months. 4.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(V. L. ACHLIYA, J.) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) JPC 2/2