JUDGMENT :

S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

1. The common issue involved in the present petitions is about the retirement age of Leading Fireman/Tandel working in Pune Municipal Corporation. The grouse of Petitioners is that the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel was earlier a Class-IV post and therefore age of 60 years was fixed for retirement. They are aggrieved by action of the Municipal Corporation in curtailing the age of retirement to 58 years on account of subsequent reclassification of the post as Class-III. The issue that we have been called upon to decide in the present petitions is about the exact age at which Leading Firemen/Tandel would retire from services of Pune Municipal Corporation.

2. Appearing for petitioners, Mr. Mahadeshwar the learned Counsel would submit that notification of Pune Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Classification of Services) Rules, 2014 (Recruitment Rules, 2014) cannot have any impact on the age of superannuation of Leading Fireman/Tandel. That the age of retirement of various municipal servants has been provided for in the Municipal Service Regulations, 1954 (Service Regulations, 1954) formulated under the provisions of Section 465 of the MMC Act. That the Recruitment Rules, 2014 do not have the effect of superseding the provisions of the Service Regulations 1954. Therefore the Service Regulations, 1954 still continue to subsist and operate, under which the post of Tandel is included in inferior service in Class-IV category. That therefore Leading Fireman/Tandel are entitled to serve upto the age of 60 years.

3. Mr. Mahadeshwar would further contend that Section 465(1)(g) of the MMC Act confers powers on the Standing Committee to frame Regulations laying down the age of retirement of the municipal servants. Confirmation of the Municipal Corporation is required in respect of those Regulations and not of the State Government. That the Service Regulations 1954 have been framed by the Standing Committee vide Resolution dated 27.02.1954, which came to be confirmed by the Municipal Corporation vide Resolution dated 26.03.1954. That the Municipal Corporation could formulate Recruitment Rules, 2014 only in respect of those posts where appointments can be made by the Municipal Corporation, whereas the Corporation formulated Recruitment Rules in respect of all the posts in the Corporation. That the Regulations prescribing qualifications required for appointment to posts other than the posts specified in Section 457(3) of the Act can be framed only by the Standing Committee and that therefore the Recruitment Rules, 2014 (which are not framed by the Standing Committee) are in violation of Section 465(1)(a). That therefore the Recruitment Rules, 2014 cannot have the effect of altering the age of retirement of Leading Fireman/Tandel.

4. Per-contra, Mr. Patil the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation would oppose the petition. He would submit that the Recruitment Rules, 2014 supersede the Service Regulations 1954. That the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel has been classified as Class-III post under the Recruitment Rules, 2014 and therefore the age of retirement of incumbents holding that post would be 58 years. That Petitioners have enjoyed other service benefits flowing out of classification of post of Leading Fireman/Tandel as Class-III, such as higher pay-scale and therefore they cannot contend that the post would still continue to remain Class-IV. He would submit that under the Fifth Pay Commission pay scales, the post of Leading Fireman/Tandel was in the scale of 3050-7150 and that as per the Government Resolutions dated 02.07.2002 and 27.05.2016, the posts carrying the pay-scales within range of 4400 to 8999 are classified as Group-C posts. That only those posts for which pay scale is below the limit of 4399 (such as 2650-4000 or 2610-4000) are classified as Group-D posts. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.

5. Brief facts of the case as captured from pleadings filed by the par