ANANT NARAYAN SHIKHARE Vs. UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY ANDOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India solicits a relief pursuant to petitioner not being allowed to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years. By reason of subsequent happenings that is a relief i. e. , continuance which cannot be granted unto him.

(2.) THE short question now surviving is whether the petitioner should be allowed to exercise a fresh option vis-a-vis the alternatives open to the retiring employees. The options are (i) contributory provident fund rule and/or gratuity scheme applicable; and (ii) pension-cum-gratuity scheme as contained in Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, under Government Resolution No. NGC/1283/865 UNI-IV dated 21st July, 1983. Petitioner had initially opted for the first alternative and this on the assumption that he would be retiring at the age of 60 years. Being part of the non-teaching staff of an affiliated college i. e. respondent No. 2, the petitioner expected that he would be allowed to serve till he attained the age of 60 years. The State Government subsequently reduced the age of retirement for non-teaching employees, except class IV servants, to 58 years. Pursuant to an order passed by the School Tribunal, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service even after he had completed 58 years. During that period he was paid a salary which under the system of grants was reimbursed by the State Government. Because of the reduction in the age of retirement, petitioner had to leave before completing the age of 60 years. Finding himself in this position, the petitioner wants to change his option to the second alternative. The State Government contends that he cannot. The reasons given by it for the negative attitude are discussed below.

(3.) THE first contention is that the petition is bereft of any prayer which would enable the petitioner to exercise a fresh option. In terms, the petition does not contain such a prayer. But this would not be a reason for denying unto the petitioner a relief to which he is otherwise entitled, having regard to the long pendency of this petition as also the indisputable position in law. The petition prayer column contains an omnibus prayer enabling this Court to grant such directions as may be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. This is a writ Court and technical rules more appropriate to pleadings in civil suits cannot have precedence over substantial justice here. Therefore, the absence of a prayer in terms permitting petitioner to exercise a fresh option will not be a reason to deny him that relief, if the same be otherwise admissible.