Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 248758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025:BHC-AS:51419-DB
WRIT PETITION NO. 15837 OF 2025
Pramod Pandurang Bhuwad … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Thr. The Secretary Urban Development Dept And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Susheel Mahadeshwar i/b Mr. R. Todankar, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishwanath Patil a/w Mr. Akshay Naidu, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 – PMC.
Mrs. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent - State
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2025
Class-IV employees are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years. Municipal and state bodies must ensure conformity with this judicial mandate, providing reinstatement or notional retiral benefits to those superannuated prematurely, and amending service rules to align with this standard.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Retirement age - Superannuation of lower category employees - Whether retirement age is 58 or 60 - Held, such employees are entitled to retire at the age of 60 years - Consequences of premature retirement - Direction for reinstatement of those yet to reach 60 - Grant of notional benefits including re-calculation of retiral dues for those who crossed the age during litigation, excluding actual salary for the out-of-service period. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Administrative Mandates - Directives to state authorities - Requirement to amend service rules in accordance with settled judicial pronouncements regarding the age of superannuation - Duty to ensure uniform application across municipal bodies. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a lower category employee, sought to challenge the age of retirement being set at 58. The petitioner contended that, based on settled judicial precedent, the age of superannuation for this service class is 60 years. The employer asserted that existing service rules mandated retirement at 58.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the issue of the retirement age for this class of employees was already settled by higher judicial authority. The court held that the employer cannot act contrary to this settled position. It was ordered that the employee be retained until the age of 60, subject to health or disciplinary conditions. Individuals retired prematurely are entitled to notional benefits, provided they do not claim salary for the period of non-service.
Issues: The main issues were the determination of the correct age of superannuation (58 or 60 years) for lower category staff and the consequent remedies for those impacted by premature retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the settled judicial principle that the superannuation age is 60 years, the court held that compliance is mandatory, requiring relevant authorities to amend existing service rules to align with this standard for all covered bodies.
Result: Petition allowed.
****
P.C. :
1. The only issue before us is as to whether the Class- IV employees working in the Corporation would retire at the age of 60 years or 58 years. The Petitioners rely upon the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3rd March, 2025 in Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., (SLP (C) No. 18756 of 2023). The Judgment of this Court dated 2nd May, 2023 delivered in Writ Petition No. 1165 of 2021 was the subject matter of challenge in the said proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further pointed out that, relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has delivered interim orders.
2. The learned Advocate for the Corporation submits, on instructions, that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre (supra), pertains to the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act and the Municipal laws. By the said Judgment, all the submissions of the parties and the Pune Municipal Corporation were considered and it was concluded that those Class – IV employees who have been superannuated at the age of 58 years, would stand superannuated at the age of 60 years. If they are yet to reach the age, they shall be reinstated in service. Those who have already crossed the age of 60 years during the litigation, they would be granted notional benefits including re-calculation of pension and retirement benefits. However, salary or other monetary emoluments shall not be actually paid for the said period of being out of service.
3. In view of the above and since the Corporation cannot argue against the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the Judgment of the High Court has been upheld, this Petition is allowed. Since the Petitioner has still not attained the age of superannuation, which would be 30th November, 2025, we direct the Corporation that he would continue in employment until the age of 60 years, save and except, if there is any other impediment, health-wise or disciplinary action etc. This order is restricted only to the legal aspect of the age of retirement being 60 years.
4. We are informed that there are many Petitions being filed before Court on the same aspect. We, therefore, direct the State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, to direct the Municipal Corporations and all other bodies who are covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Sanjay Sadashiv Bendre (supra), to accordingly amend their rules and mention the superannuation age as 60 years for Class-IV employees.
