SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1769

SANDEEP V. MARNE
Rajendra Dagdulal Kankariya – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
P.P.Pujari, Advocate, Aniket Malu, Advocate, Aditya Raktade, Advocate

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top