JUDGMENT

R.D.DHANUKA, J. - The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3125 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a declaration that the age of retirement of the petitioner who worked as polytechnic lecturer is 60 years and cannot be treated as 58 years. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 31st December, 2019 informing the petitioner that he stood retired on attaining the age of 58 years. The petitioner seeks permission to perform his duties in the said post till the actual retirement after attaining the age of 60 years and seeks payment of salary due and payable from 1st January, 2020 till the date of retirement of the petitioner with interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount due and payable till payment within four weeks.

2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 3617 of 2020 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 27th February, 2003 in as much as the same affect the age of the retirement of the employees reducing the same from 60 years to 58 years and denies the right of the employees to receive the arrears of difference and revised the pay-scales w.e.f. 1st January, 1996. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondent no.4 to continue the petitioner in service as In-charge Head of Department of Civil Engineering till he completes 60 years of age and to pay his salary and other benefits regularly.

3. By an order dated 20th October, 2020 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, this Writ Petition came to be admitted. This Court granted interim reliefs restraining the respondent nos. 4 and 5 from retiring the petitioner on completion of 58 years of age. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed Special Leave to Appeal (SLA) No. 1139 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court impugning the said interim order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court expedited the hearing of this writ petition with a direction to dispose of the same as early as possible preferably within one month. By Interim Application No. 93900 of 2020, the original respondent nos. 4 and 5 have prayed for vacating the interim relief granted on 27th August, 2020 directing that the service of the petitioner shall be continued as Lecturer in respondent no.4-college till the retirement age of 60 years.

4. By consent of parties all the aforesaid proceedings were heard together finally and are being disposed of by a common order.

Facts and submission in Writ Petition No. 3125 of 2020 :-

5. The petitioner has acquired degree in M.Sc (Electronics) and is qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer. On 16th August, 1990, the petitioner was appointed on probation for two years as lecturer by the respondent no.1-Management w.e.f. 1st August, 1990 after following the process of interview and selection. By letter dated 24th September, 1992, the petitioner was confirmed in service w.e.f. 1st August, 1992. The petitioner continued to be in service from the first day of his appointment in 1990 and completed the period of more than 29 years. On 29th January 2015, the Director of Technical Education, Maharashtra granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner. On 31st December, 2019, the respondent no.1 issued a letter to the petitioner informing that he had been retired from the services of the respondent no.2 as lecturer in Computer Technology Department w.e.f. 31st December, 2019 evening as he had completed 58 years of age and was due for retirement on that day. It is the case of the petitioner that no notice period was given to the petitioner by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 before retiring the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition on 24th January, 2020 for various reliefs.

6. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents annexed to the writ petition including the letter date