VINAYAK Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner claims declaration that his age of retirement or superannuation be declared as 60 years, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The date of birth of the petitioner is 28.06.1940. He was appointed as Assistant Teacher by appointment order dated 05.08.1963/16.08.1963 by Chief Executive Officer, Buldana. He worked in Government High School, Khamgaon till 28.02.1999. He used to teach standards 5th to 10th as Special Teacher (Craft Teacher). Vidarbha region was the part and parcel of Madhya Pradesh and after reorganization, it became the part of the Maharashtra State. Reorganization having taken place w.e.f. 01.05.1960, the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "MP Act") was applicable in the Vidarbha region and continued to apply till 01.01.1966. The teachers serving in the secondary schools as well as middle schools in the Vidarbha region, therefore, were governed by the earlier service conditions and in particular Regulation7 of Chapter 10 of the MP Act providing for age of superannuation as 60 years. A person appointed to undergo probation in the term of one year would be deemed permanent upon completion of period of total two years. The petitioner, therefore, became entitled to be confirmed on 16.08.1965 since he completed two years from his initial appointment on 16.08.1963. The petitioner was obviously governed by the aforesaid provisions of the MP Act, 1951 all the more so because the Act continued to apply till 01.01.1966. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to the said beneficial provision in the matter of age of his superannuation namely; 60 years and not 58 years. However, the petitioner was made to retire at the age of 58 years only. Despite the fact that he made representation on 01.10.1997 (Annexure C), he was denied the benefit of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of M. G. Pendke and ors. .vs.Municipal Council, Hinganghat, and ors., 1993 AIR(SC) 142 and pleaded that his age of retirement cannot be curtailed. However, he was made to retire at the age of 58 years on 30.06.1998. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the petitioner was admittedly governed by the provisions of the MP Act. Even on the date of his appointment namely; 05.08.1963/16.08.1963 the MP Act continued to apply till 01.01.1966. He was, therefore, clearly entitled to the benefit of Regulation7 of Chapter 12 of the MP Act providing for the age of superannuation as 60 years. The petitioner having been continued in service for a period of two years after his initial appointment from 16.08.1963, obviously became deemed permanent and, therefore, no dispute could be raised about his permanency in service. In the case of M. G. Pendke and ors. the apex Court held that those who were governed by the provisions of the MP Act, were entitled to the age of superannuation, in which age of superannuation was 60 years and not 58 years. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, then contended that not only that, the State of Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution after judgment of the Supreme Court, on 27.10.1994 (Annexure "B") obeying the Supreme Court judgment by directing accordingly to fix the age of retirement of the teachers like the petitioner at 60 years. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have been given the age of retirement at 60 years and not 58 years. Continuing his submissions, Mr. Patil, further submitted that the State of Maharashtra issued another Government Resolution dated 02.02.1999 (Annexure G) and in particular its clause (4) by which, contradictory and illegal direction has been issued in respect of the teachers working under the Zilla Parishads that their retirement age would be 58 years and not 60 years. The said resolution is clearly contrary to the Supreme Court judgment as well as earlier Government Resolutions and, therefore, there is a prayer in the petition, prayer clause (c) for quashing the said Government Resolution dated 02.02.1999 which may be accepted. Finally, Mr. Patil, relied on an order dated 04.03.2005 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No. 1243/2005 in Writ Petition No.2002/1994 and contended that the Division Bench of this Court has also held accordingly and in view of the said order also, the petitioner is entitled to the consequential benefits of his retirement as 60 years. In support of his contentions, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, cited decision in Laxmikant Gangadhar Ancharwadkar..vs..State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2005 2 AllMR 206 and submitted that insofar as Zilla Parishad teachers are concerned, paragraph 21 (3) of the said judgment was clarified by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 2002/1994 by its order dated 04.03.2005.