REETA HARODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the judgment dated 27.08.2014 delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No. 324 of 2014. The petitioner approached MAT assailing her superannuation on reaching the age of 60 years and questioned refusal of State Government to grant her an extended age of superannuation beyond 60 years and up to 62 years. The date of birth, the date of retirement on reaching the age of superannuation or the date on which she completes 62 years of her age are not in dispute. She reaches 62 years of her age on 31.10.2015 and hence upon the request made by Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioner on 07.10.2015, the petition was directed to be listed on 19.10.2015. That is how it is being heard finally today.

(2.) The petitioner reached the age of 60 years on 31.10.2013. On 29.10.2013, the State Government denied her extension for further two years on the ground that her Confidential Reports in proceeding five years did not satisfy norms prescribed by clause 11(4) of Government Resolution dated 05.03.2011. It is not in dispute that an incumbent has to possess minimum three "A" grade Confidential Reports and two "B+" grade Confidential Reports in those five years. The Government found that the petitioner was having "B" grade only in said five years. Because of this decision, the petitioner stood superannuated on 31.10.2013. However, it appears that she filed a petition before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 5880 of 2013 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for getting that communication quashed. The petition was looked into by this Court on 28.10.2013 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. On 09.04.2014, this Court continued interim orders for a period of six weeks and permitted the petitioner to approach MAT. Thereafter, MAT was approached in O.A. No. 324 of 2014 and on 27.08.2014, that O.A. came to be rejected. The petitioner claims that though till rejection of her case by MAT, she continued to work, she has not been paid salary therefor.

(3.) Shri Sambre, learned counsel by inviting attention to these facts states that the only issue to be looked into by the MAT was, the grievance of noncommunication of adverse entries in Confidential Reports. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., 2008 8 SCC 725, to urge that any entry in Confidential Report which operates to the prejudice of the employee is rated as adverse and needs communication. Here, when clause 11(4) of Government Resolution expected an incumbent to possess three "A" and two "B+" grades, rating of the petitioner as "B" in those five years is nothing but an adverse action. As those adverse remarks are not communicated, the same would not have been looked into for this purpose and denial of extension up to 62 years is, therefore, arbitrary. He points out that the Government Resolution is the outcome of litigation before this Court and has been issued after its due approval of the court. The parameters prescribed therein are, therefore, binding and the petitioner is entitled to be considered in terms thereof. If in law, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in terms thereof, denial of extension cannot be sustained. In the alternative and without prejudice, he has invited our attention to a corrigendum issued on 23.02.2012. He points out that there persons who did not possess Ph.D. degree were given certain relaxation and the norm prescribing Ph.D. as also norms about having Confidential remarks of particular grade have been relaxed. He argues that the petitioner already had Ph.D. degree and as such, the relaxed norms should have been applied even to her case. Indirectly, he argues that when norm prescribing parameters in relation to Confidential Reports can be relaxed for a non Ph.D. holder, the norms cannot be enforced in the case of a more meritorious candidate like the petitioner. He fairly points out that though MAT has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Baikuntha Nath Das and Anr. vs. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada & Anr., 1992 2 SCC 299, the said judgment does not consider the question of grading of Confidential Report and its adverse impact as has been looked into in later judgment in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to extend the petitioner's service till she attains 62 years of age i.e. till 31.10.2015. He also relies upon two unreported judgments of this Court which follow Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. and grant such an extension.