SAMADHAN Vs. PUNJABRAO DESHMUKH KRISHI VIDYAPEETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No. 2954/2011 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Samadhan Umak a Laboratory Attendant working with respondent no.1 Agriculture University has challenged the notice of retirement dated 14.06.2011 served upon him by the Secretary of respondent no.1, inter alia mentioning that as he completes 58 years of age on 30.06.2011, he would stand retired on that date as per Rule 10[1] of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Rules for short). It is not in dispute that his date of birth is 01.07.1953, however, according to the petitioner, as he is Class IV or Group D employee, age of retirement in his case is 60 years, as laid down in Rule 10.2 of the 1982 Rules. This petition was filed on 27.05.2011 and this Court issued notice in the matter on 28.06.2011 and made it returnable on 30.06.2011. The matter was then adjourned on one or two dates and was heard on 06.07.2011, when we permitted respondent nos. 1 and 2 time till 11.07.2011 to clarify the issue in relation of status of petitioner. Accordingly on 11.07.2011, respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed additional affidavit stating that, in appointment order of petitioner he was shown to be in Category D or Group D. They further disclosed that, they have not published any grouping or categorization depending upon the pay scales of their own, but were relying on the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2002.

(2.) Another Writ Petition No. 2505/2011 also filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Maroti Dhote a Laboratory Attendant working with respondent no.1 Agriculture University has challenged the notice of retirement dated 28.04.2011 served upon him by the Secretary of respondent no.1, inter alia mentioning that as he completes 58 years of age on 20.05.2011, he would stand retired on 31.05.2011 as per Rule 10[1] of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. In this case also it is not in dispute that date of birth of petitioner Maroti is 21.05.1953, however, according to the petitioner, as he is Class IV or Group D employee, age of retirement in his case is 60 years, as laid down in Rule 10.2 of the 1982 Rules.

(3.) We have heard both the petitions finally by consent of Shri A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. R.D. Raskar, learned Counsel for Petitioners and Shri Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for Respondents, by making Rule, returnable forthwith.