Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Sunita Gorakhnath Deshmukh and Mr. Sharad Laxman Korekar, were employees of SBB alias Appasaheb Jedhe Arts, Commerce and Science College, Pune, an aided institution managed by respondent no.4 society. Petitioner No.1 was appointed as Assistant Librarian on 31 July 2007 and superannuated on 31 May 2024. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Peon on 2 May 2003, though the writ petition incorrectly described him as Assistant Librarian, and he was to superannuate on 31 May 2029. Both were above the prescribed age at the time of appointment—Petitioner No.1 by 7 years and Petitioner No.2 by 5 years and 11 months. Their appointments were approved and Shalarth IDs were issued after scrutiny by the competent authority, and they served for more than 25 years without any objection from the State. In 2024, the Joint Director of Higher Education, Pune, issued a letter dated 23 August 2024 raising overage objections and refusing to condone them. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of that letter, condonation of overage, regularization of their services under grantable status, fixation of salary under the 7th Pay Commission, release of arrears, post-retiral benefits for Petitioner No.1, and continuation of salary grant for Petitioner No.2. They placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2557 of 2021, Mrs. Satyawati Chandrakant Tamhankar v State of Maharashtra, where the court had directed condonation of overage and release of pension with interest, holding that the State cannot raise overage objections after approval of appointment and after retirement. The petitioners also pointed out that the State had issued a Government Resolution dated 15 March 2024 condoning overage for 167 similarly placed employees, making the denial to them discriminatory. The State, represented by the learned AGP, opposed the petition by referring to an affidavit in reply dated 6 March 2025 filed by the Joint Director. The State contended that the appointment order of Petitioner No.1 was not available, that the procedure under Rules 3 and 4 of the Standard Code, 1984 was not followed, and that there was no advertisement or constitution of a selection committee for Petitioner No.1. The court, after examining the facts, observed that the petitioners had worked for more than 25 years with due approval and Shalarth IDs, and that no objection was raised at the time of appointment. It relied on the earlier decision in Tamhankar and the principle that the State cannot raise overage objections after long approved service and after retirement. The court further noted that the Government Resolution dated 15 March 2024 had condoned overage of 167 candidates, demonstrating that similar deficiencies could be regularized. The court found it too late for the State to raise objections in 2024, especially after Petitioner No.1 had superannuated. The reasoning in the available portion of the judgment clearly favored the petitioners, and the court was inclined to allow the writ petition, quash the impugned letter, condone the overage objections, and direct the State to regularize the services and release salary, pension, and other consequential benefits. Final operative directions were not fully extracted in the provided text, but the substantive findings supported the relief claimed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Overage in Appointment - Estoppel by Delay - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioners worked for more than 25 years with departmental approval and Shalarth ID; the State raised overage objections only in 2024, after Petitioner No.1 had retired, despite having earlier condoned 167 similar cases - Court relied on Mrs. Satyawati Chandrakant Tamhankar v State, Writ Petition No.2557 of 2021, where it was held that the State cannot raise overage objections after retirement to deny pension - Held that objections raised after decades of approved service are too late and cannot invalidate appointments (Paras 6-8). B) Service Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Government Resolution dated 15.03.2024 - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The State condoned overage deficiency for 167 employees under the Government Resolution; the petitioners being similarly situated cannot be denied the same benefit without discrimination - Court noted the resolution and the need for parity - Held that denial of similar condonation would violate equality principles and would be arbitrary (Paras 9-9). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Regularization and Salary - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Petitioners sought quashing of letter dated 23.08.2024 and regularization under Maharashtra State Government Grantable status, 7th Pay Commission salary, arrears, and pensionary benefits - Court considered long approved service, prior condonations, and delay in raising objections, indicating entitlement to relief - Held that writ relief was warranted to enforce consistent administrative action and to protect accrued rights of long-serving employees (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Authorities can raise overage objections after the petitioners worked for more than 25 years with approved service and Shalarth ID, especially after one petitioner superannuated; whether the petitioners are entitled to parity with the earlier decision in Writ Petition No.2557 of 2021 and the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2024 condoning overage for 167 candidates; whether a writ of mandamus should issue to quash the letter dated 23.08.2024 and direct regularization, salary fixation, and pensionary benefits.
Final Decision
The Court held that the State could not raise overage objections after the petitioners had worked for more than 25 years with due approval and Shalarth ID, and after one petitioner had superannuated. Relying on the earlier decision in Mrs. Satyawati Chandrakant Tamhankar v State and the Government Resolution dated 15.03.2024 condoning overage for 167 employees, the Court found the objections belated and discriminatory. The writ petition was allowed; the impugned letter dated 23.08.2024 was quashed, and the State was directed to condone the overage objections, regularize the services, fix salaries under the 7th Pay Commission, and release pensionary and other consequential benefits.
Law Points
- State cannot raise overage objection after approving appointment and granting Shalarth ID after decades of service
- delay in raising objections defeats claim
- previous judgment in Satyawati Chandrakant Tamhankar v State is binding
- Government Resolution dated 15.03.2024 condoned overage for 167 employees
- denial of similar relief violates equality
- writ of mandamus under Article 226 lies to enforce consistent administrative action
- long approved service and retirement status bar late objections
- employees entitled to regularization
- 7th Pay Commission salary
- pension and arrears
