(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to claim broadly the following reliefs :
(2.) IT is claimed by the petitioner that he has been responsible for turning around respondent no.4 i.e., National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (NPCC). It is the case of the petitioner that the said respondent which was in red i.e., making loss in the year 2007 -2008 when the petitioner joined the WP(C) 480/2014 Page 1 of 8 said organization as Director (Engineer) got turned around in 2009 -2010, that is, within three years of his joining the organisation. It is also the case of the petitioner that the position improved between the financial year 2009 - 2010 and 2012 -2013. The figures in that regard have been set out in paragraph 11 of the petition.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the relief of extension of tenure upto the age of 65 years as sought by the petitioner, cannot be granted. The reason for this is, two -fold. Firstly, the cause of action, if any, arose on 28.02.2013. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had made a representation, which did not bear fruit. The petitioner should have approached the court before the date of superannuation or at least in close proximity. Though, the counsel for the petitioner has said, that there are other cases in which extensions have been given after superannuation, in my view this circumstance by itself would not confer any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner.