Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J., ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Rajendra Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. After the extensive submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides on 12th March, 2025, on account of paucity of time, we posted these matters today, for dictation of order.
3. These are peculiar cases which rest purely on peculiar facts and the interpretation of law. Whether the prescribed age of retirement of employees, as fixed at the time of their entry in service, could be abruptly altered to their prejudice?
4. For clarity, we are reproducing a ready reference chart to indicate the details of each Petitioner, in the form of a Bird’s Eye View.
The same is reproduced as under :
5. The only dispute as regards whether a Petitioner is in the teaching or non-teaching category, is with reference to Petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 8668 of 2019, namely, Dr. Baban Jogdand. It is claimed that he was in the teaching category. He is still in employment and is posted as Research Officer (Publication) from 17.5.2007.
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners points out that Dr. Baban Jogdand has two PHD Thesis to his credit (double Ph. D. holder), has 23
The fixed age of retirement established at the time of employment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments must operate prospectively.
Fixed age of retirement established at the time of appointment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments operate prospectively.
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 applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
Employees of a residential institution governed by statutory regulations are entitled to the same superannuation benefits as government employees unless explicitly stated otherwise.
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
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
