Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Rajendra Dagdulal Kankariya, a professor and former principal, challenged the judgment of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal dated 23 December 2021 in Appeal No.13/2018. The petitioner had served as Principal of D.G. Tatkare Arts and Commerce College from 1 February 2012 and attained the age of 62 years on 31 December 2015. Under Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011, the age of superannuation for principals could be extended to 65 years subject to a performance review by a committee. The Management failed to forward the petitioner's case for such review, resulting in his retirement at 62. The Tribunal found that the Management violated the petitioner's right of consideration for extension but, since the petitioner had already crossed 65 years by the date of the judgment, reinstatement was not possible. The Tribunal directed the Management to pay compensation equivalent to three months' salary and costs of Rs.10,000. The petitioner sought full salary and allowances for the three-year period he was wrongfully deprived of service. The High Court, in its judgment dated 7 October 2023, held that the compensation awarded was inadequate. It reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of extension and should have served till 65 years. Since reinstatement was not feasible, the Management was directed to pay the petitioner salary and allowances for the entire period from 1 January 2016 (the date of retirement) till 31 December 2018 (when he would have attained 65 years), along with costs of Rs.10,000. The writ petition was partly allowed, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retirement Age Extension - Right to Consideration - Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011 - The Management violated the petitioner's right of consideration for extension of his age of retirement from 62 years to 65 years by not forwarding his case for performance review. The Tribunal held the violation but awarded only three months' salary as compensation. The High Court enhanced compensation to full salary and allowances for three years, from the date of retirement till attaining 65 years, holding that the petitioner was wrongfully deprived of an opportunity to serve. (Paras 1-8) B) Service Law - Compensation for Wrongful Deprivation - Adequacy of Relief - Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016, Section 81(1) - Where reinstatement is not possible due to the employee having crossed the age of superannuation, compensation must reflect the actual loss suffered. The High Court held that the Tribunal's award of three months' salary was inadequate and directed payment of salary and allowances for the full period of three years the petitioner would have served had he been granted extension. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to salary and allowances for the period he was wrongfully deprived of consideration for extension of retirement age from 62 to 65 years, and whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It modified the Tribunal's order and directed the Management to pay the petitioner salary and allowances for the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018 (three years) along with costs of Rs.10,000. The compensation of three months' salary was set aside.
Law Points
- Right to consideration for extension of retirement age
- Compensation for wrongful deprivation of employment opportunity
- Section 81(1) of Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016
- Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011
