RAJENDRA DAGDULAL KANKARIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, Petitioner challenges Judgment and Order dtd. 23/12/2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeal No.13/2018. The Tribunal has held that the Management violated Petitioner's right of consideration for extension of his age of retirement from 62 years to 65 years. However, since Petitioner had already crossed the age of 65 years as on 23/12/2021 and since reinstatement was not possible, the Management is directed to pay to the Petitioner compensation equivalent to three months' salary and cost of Rs.10,000.00. Petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of salary and allowances for a period of three years for wrongfully depriving him of an opportunity to serve till attaining the age of 65 years.

(2.) Petitioner, in his career spanning over 35 years, served as Professor of Chemistry as well as Principal and Registrar of two different Universities. He came to be appointed on the post of Principal in Respondent No.4-College on 1/2/2012. He attained the age of 62 years on 31/12/2015. By Government Resolution dtd. 5/3/2011, a decision was taken to increase the age of superannuation of Principals upto the age of 65 years subject to conduct of performance review by a Committee. Various other conditions are laid down in the Government Resolution, subject to which such extension in the age of retirement can be granted. It appears that the Petitioner's case was not forwarded for conduct of performance review and on that count, he was made to retire on attaining the age of 62 years on 31/12/2015. He filed Appeal No.13/2018 before the Tribunal under Sec. 81(1) of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016. The Tribunal has partly allowed the Appeal. The Tribunal has partly allowed the Appeal by judgment and order dtd. 23/12/2021 holding that the Management failed to follow the mandatory directions under the Government Resolution dtd. 5/3/2011 with regard to the Petitioner's right of consideration for extension of age of retirement. However, since the Petitioner had already crossed the age of 65 years as on 23/12/2021 and was employed as a Professor on lesser salary during September 2019 to April 2021, the Tribunal proceeded to award compensation equal to three months' salary lastly drawn by him and costs quantified at Rs.10,000.00. Petitioner is aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision to the extent of non-award of salary and wages as well as nonrevision of his pay for pension and has accordingly filed the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Singh would appear on behalf of the Petitioner and submit that although the Tribunal has fully decided the Appeal in favour of the Petitioner, it has not granted any relief to him. That the Management deliberately did not follow the procedure prescribed in the Government Resolution dtd. 5/3/2011 with a view to deny extension of age of retirement to Petitioner. That his case was never placed before the Performance Review Committee. That the Management did not have any eligible selected candidate for being appointed in place of Petitioner at the time of his retirement. The appointment of Dr. Landage, subsequently made on 24/2/2016, cannot be a reason for denial of extension of age of retirement to the Petitioner. He would take me through various findings recorded by the Tribunal in Petitioner's favour to demonstrate as to how the lawful right of the Petitioner was violated by the management. He would submit that after the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that Petitioner was illegally denied the right for consideration of his case of extension of age of retirement, the Tribunal ought to have granted the relief of full salary and wages to him for three years in addition to grant of pay fixation to increase his pensionable pay. Mr. Singh has further submitted that infact the provision for extension of age of retirement is made in pursuance of the directives issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). That the UGC had recommended grant of extension of age of retirement without any conditions. That therefore the State Government could not have made such extension conditional by imposing various conditions in the G.R. dtd. 5/3/2011. In such circumstances, the Petitioner could not have been denied the relief of wages during the extended period for the reason of alleged nonfulfillment of such illegal conditions. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Jacob Thudipara V/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [2022] 4 SCR 68 and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi V/s. The State of Gujarat & Ors. [2022] 4 SCR 406.