Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Rajendra Dagdulal Kankariya – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. By this petition, Petitioner challenges Judgment and Order dtd. 23/12/2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal in Appeal No.13/2018. The Tribunal has held that the Management violated Petitioner's right of consideration for extension of his age of retirement from 62 years to 65 years. However, since Petitioner had already crossed the age of 65 years as on 23/12/2021 and since reinstatement was not possible, the Management is directed to pay to the Petitioner compensation equivalent to three months' salary and cost of Rs.10,000.00. Petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of salary and allowances for a period of three years for wrongfully depriving him of an opportunity to serve till attaining the age of 65 years.
2. Petitioner, in his career spanning over 35 years, served as Professor of Chemistry as well as Principal and Registrar of two different Universities. He came to be appointed on the post of Principal in Respondent No.4-College on 1/2/2012. He attained the age of 62 years on 31/12/2015. By Government Resolution dtd. 5/3/2011, a decision was taken to increase the age of superannuation of Principals upto the age of 65 years sub
The management's failure to consider a petitioner's case for extension of retirement age, as mandated by applicable government resolutions, constitutes a violation of the petitioner's rights, justify....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to continue in service until they attained the age of 62 years as per Section 15A of the Goa University Act, ....
Service Matter – Age of retirement – 1 - Every Government servant shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years:2- Government ....
The court affirmed that the discretion to extend superannuation age lies with the employer, considering the institution's interests and financial health, without constituting discrimination.
The court upheld the retirement age of 60 for employees of a public sector undertaking, declaring attempts to roll back this age unauthorized without Cabinet approval.
The Service Rules govern the retirement age, and decisions of the governing body cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
