JUDGMENT :

ANIL S. KILOR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The State of Maharashtra issued Government Resolutions dated 30th May, 2015, 30th June, 2015 and 3rd September, 2015, increasing the age of superannuation of the District Health Officers, Civil Surgeons and Superior Officers working in the Public Health Department, from 58 years to 60 years on the ground of non availability of medical officers and senior officers at General Hospitals, Sub District Hospitals and Rural Hospitals.

3. Petitioners who are the Medical officers and superior officers in the Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra, by way of present petition praying for directions to the Respondents, not to increase the age limit for superannuation of the District Health Officers, Civil Surgeons and superior officers working in the Public Health Department, for the reasons that it has blocked the legitimate right of promotion and future prospects of petitioners and others like petitioners.

4. Heard Shri Avinash Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri V.M. Kagne learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Shri A.R. Salve for intervenor.

5. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for petitioner has alleged that to give benefit to some of the officers who are nearer and dearer, Ministers and higher officers working in the Mantralaya, issued impugned Government Resolutions, increasing the age of superannuation.

6. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that from last many years no effective steps have been taken by the respondents to fill in the vacancies though petitioners and many like petitioners, are available for promotion and though candidates in large number are available for fresh recruitment.

7. He submits that provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 (herein after referred as ‘Rules 1982’) prescribes the age of retirement but does not empower the State Government to increase the age limit of retirement of a Government Servant from 58 to 60 years by issuing Government Resolutions. Thus, it amounts to exercise of legislative power without authority.

8. He points out that no cogent and valid reasons are given in the Government Resolutions to increase the age of superannuation, therefore the same is arbitrary, mala-fide and not sustainable in the eyes of law.

9. Per contra the learned Asst. Government Pleader submits that due to shortage of Medical Officers and Higher Officers, Government is facing difficulties in providing Health Services to the needy people, therefore, the age of superannuation has been increased in exercise of power under Rule 12 of Rules, 1982.

10. He points out that in the ‘Civil Surgeon’ Cadre, sanctioned posts are 643 out of which 377 posts are vacant. In the ‘District Health Officers’ Cadre sanctioned posts are 281 out of which 141 posts are vacant. In the ‘Specialty cadre’ sanctioned posts are 627 out of which 466 posts are vacant.

11. He draws attention of this Court to the fact that four Specialty Doctors have been appointed on recommendation of Maharashtra Public Service Commission, vide order dated 7th March, 2018. Promotion to 58 Medical officers in Civil Surgeon cadre has been granted vide order dated 9th May, 2018.

12. According to him the Government is making all efforts to fill up the vacant post and for speedy recruitment of Medical Officers (Group A), a Committee under the Collector of each District has been formed as per the Government Resolution dated 26th October, 2016, and vacant posts to some extent have filled in.

13. He lastly opposes the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners are Government employees and they can raise their grievance before the Administrative Tribunal.

14. To consider the rival contentions, we have gone through the record and relevant provisions of law.

15. To consider the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is necessar