Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by Laboratory Attendants (Samadhan Umak and Maroti Dhote) employed with Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola. They challenged retirement notices issued by the University which stated that they would retire upon attaining 58 years of age, as per Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The petitioners contended that being Class IV or Group D employees, they were entitled to retire at 60 years under Rule 10.2 of the same Rules. The University initially argued that the petitioners were not Class IV employees but later admitted in an additional affidavit that the appointment order showed them as Category D or Group D. The University relied on a Government Resolution dated 02.07.2002 to justify the lower retirement age. The court examined the relevant rules and found that Rule 10.2 specifically provides for retirement at 60 years for Class IV or Group D employees. The court held that the University cannot override this rule by relying on a Government Resolution. The court quashed the retirement notices and directed that the petitioners be allowed to continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Retirement Age - Class IV/Group D Employees - Rule 10.2 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - Petitioners, Laboratory Attendants, challenged retirement notices fixing retirement at 58 years - Court held that as Class IV/Group D employees, they are entitled to retire at 60 years under Rule 10.2, and the University cannot rely on Government Resolution dated 02.07.2002 to fix a lower retirement age - Notices quashed and set aside (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, being Class IV/Group D employees, are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years under Rule 10.2 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, or at 58 years as per the notice of retirement issued by the respondent University.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. The impugned retirement notices dated 14.06.2011 (in WP 2954/2011) and 28.04.2011 (in WP 2505/2011) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to continue in service until they attain the age of 60 years. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Retirement age for Class IV/Group D employees is 60 years under Rule 10.2 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules
- 1982
- University cannot fix lower retirement age by relying on Government Resolution dated 02.07.2002
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 85
Writ Petition No. 2954 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 2505 of 2011
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.D. Kode
Mr. A.M. Gordey, Senior Advocate with Mrs. R.D. Raskar for Petitioners; Mr. Abhay Sambre for Respondents
Samadhan s/o Rajaram Umak and Maroti s/o Tukaram Dhote Umak
Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging retirement notices issued by the employer University.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of retirement notices and direction to allow petitioners to continue in service until age 60.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were served with retirement notices stating they would retire at age 58, whereas they claimed entitlement to retire at age 60 as Class IV/Group D employees.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are Class IV/Group D employees entitled to retirement at age 60 under Rule 10.2 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
Whether the University can fix a lower retirement age for such employees by relying on a Government Resolution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are Class IV/Group D employees and thus entitled to retire at 60 years under Rule 10.2 of the 1982 Rules.
Respondents initially disputed the classification but later admitted in additional affidavit that appointment order showed Category D/Group D; they relied on Government Resolution dated 02.07.2002 to justify retirement at 58 years.
Ratio Decidendi
Class IV or Group D employees are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years under Rule 10.2 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, and the employer cannot override this rule by relying on a Government Resolution prescribing a lower retirement age.
Judgment Excerpts
It is not in dispute that his date of birth is 01.07.1953, however, according to the petitioner, as he is ClassIV or GroupD employee, age of retirement in his case is 60 years, as laid down in Rule 10.2 of the 1982 Rules.
They further disclosed that, they have not published any grouping or categorization depending upon the payscales of their own, but were relying on the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2002.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No. 2954/2011 was filed on 27.05.2011, notice issued on 28.06.2011, made returnable on 30.06.2011, heard on 06.07.2011, respondents filed additional affidavit on 11.07.2011, judgment reserved on 11.07.2011 and pronounced on 25.07.2011. Writ Petition No. 2505/2011 was also filed under Article 226, with similar procedural history.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982: Rule 10(1), Rule 10.2
