Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging the retirement of polytechnic lecturers at the age of 58 instead of 60. The first petitioner was a Lecturer Selection Grade at Bhausaheb Vartak Polytechnic, appointed on probation in 1990 and confirmed in 1992. He was retired by the management on 31 December 2019 after attaining 58 years, allegedly without prior notice. The second petitioner sought quashing of a Government Resolution dated 27 February 2003 that reduced the retirement age from 60 to 58 and denied revised pay scales effective 1 January 1996, and prayed for continuation as In-charge Head of Department of Civil Engineering till 60. Earlier, the court had granted interim relief directing continuation of service till 60, which the respondents sought to vacate through an interim application. The respondents also filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, which directed expeditious disposal of the writ petition. The petitioners argued that the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 18(1), providing retirement at 58 for non-Class IV employees, did not apply to a private unaided polytechnic, and that All India Council for Technical Education service conditions prescribed retirement at 60. The court heard all proceedings together finally and reserved judgment. The provided excerpt does not contain the final operative decision, but it indicates the court was to determine the correct retirement age and the validity of the impugned Government Resolution. No final ratio decidendi or directions are available from the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 Constitution of India - Petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash retirement communication dated 31-12-2019 and Government Resolution dated 27-02-2003; interim relief continued service till 60; all proceedings heard together finally. (Paras 1-4)
B) Service Law - Retirement Age - Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, Rule 18(1) - Rule 18(1) prescribes retirement at 58 for employees other than Class IV, while lower grade employees retire at 60; petitioner contended respondent is private unaided polytechnic and AICTE service conditions prescribe 60; applicability of MEPS Rules to be determined. (Paras 5-7)
C) Service Law - Government Resolution - Validity of GR dated 27-02-2003 - Petitioner challenged GR reducing retirement age from 60 to 58 and denying revised pay scales; court to examine legality under Article 226. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the retirement age of polytechnic lecturers in a private unaided polytechnic is 60 years or 58 years; and whether Government Resolution dated 27 February 2003 reducing retirement age from 60 to 58 is valid.
Law Points
- Age of retirement for polytechnic lecturers
- applicability of MEPS Rules 1981 Rule 18(1)
- AICTE Pay Scales Service Conditions
- validity of Government Resolution dated 27 February 2003
- writ remedies under Article 226
- interim relief and vacation thereof
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (10) 81
Writ Petition No. 3125 of 2020; Writ Petition No. 3617 of 2020; Interim Application (ST) No. 93900 of 2020
R. D. Dhanuka, R. I. Chagla
Mr. Abhay Anturkar, Mr. Harshwardhan Suryawanshi, Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar, Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar, Mr. Shaikh Nasie Masih, Mr. R. V. Govilkar, Mrs. Anjali N. Helekar, Mr. Anu C. Kaladharan, Ms. Athithi Abhay, Mr. N. C. Walimbe
Lalit Rajendra Gajanan; Mukesh Narendra Gangrade
Vidyavardhani; Bhausaheb Vartak Polytechnic; State of Maharashtra; Director of Technical Education; Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education; All India Council for Technical Education
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging retirement age of polytechnic lecturers, quashing of retirement communication and Government Resolution, and continuation in service till 60 years.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought declaration that retirement age is 60, quashing of communication dated 31 December 2019, permission to perform duties till 60, payment of salary with interest, quashing of Government Resolution dated 27 February 2003 reducing retirement age to 58, and continuation as In-charge Head of Department till 60.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were retired at 58 years by private unaided polytechnic despite claiming retirement age of 60 under All India Council for Technical Education norms; no notice was given before retirement.
Previous Decisions
By order dated 20 October 2020, Division Bench admitted Writ Petition and granted interim relief restraining retirement; respondents filed Special Leave to Appeal No. 1139 of 2021 before Supreme Court, which directed expeditious disposal; Interim Application No. 93900 of 2020 sought vacation of interim relief granted on 27 August 2020.
Issues
Whether the retirement age of polytechnic lecturers in private unaided polytechnic is 60 years or 58 years.
Whether the Government Resolution dated 27 February 2003 reducing retirement age from 60 to 58 is valid.
Whether petitioners are entitled to continuation in service till 60 years and consequential salary benefits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner in WP 3125/2020 contended that under AICTE Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications, retirement age is 60; respondent No.1 is a private unaided polytechnic and MEPS Rules 1981 Rule 18(1) retiring employees at 58 does not apply; no notice was given.
Petitioner in WP 3617/2020 sought quashing of Government Resolution dated 27 February 2003 insofar as it reduced retirement age from 60 to 58 and denied revised pay scales effective 1 January 1996.
Respondents sought vacation of interim relief and relied on MEPS Rules 1981 providing retirement at 58.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3125 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a declaration that the age of retirement of the petitioner who worked as polytechnic lecturer is 60 years and cannot be treated as 58 years.
The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 31st December, 2019 informing the petitioner that he stood retired on attaining the age of 58 years.
On 31st December, 2019, the respondent no.1 issued a letter to the petitioner informing that he had been retired from the services of the respondent no.2 as lecturer in Computer Technology Department w.e.f. 31st December, 2019 evening as he had completed 58 years of age and was due for retirement on that day.
Rules 17 and 18 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 ... under the said Rule 18(1) an employee, other than class IV employee shall retire from service on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years and under no circumstances he shall be granted an extension in service beyond that age. The age of superannuation of lower grade employee however shall be 60 years.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No. 3125 of 2020 filed on 24 January 2020; Writ Petition No. 3617 of 2020 filed; Interim Application No. 93900 of 2020 filed seeking vacation of interim relief granted on 27 August 2020; by order dated 20 October 2020, Division Bench admitted the writ petition and granted interim reliefs restraining retirement; respondents filed Special Leave to Appeal No. 1139 of 2021 before Supreme Court, which directed expeditious disposal; all proceedings heard together finally; judgment reserved on 17 August 2021 and pronounced on 29 October 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: Rule 17, Rule 18
