JUDGMENT :

Aarti Sathe, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing

2. This Petition primarily challenges the compulsory retirement of the Petitioner before the age of 58 years, alleged to be in contravention of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Service) Regulations, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) governing the employment of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(a) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate unit, directions in the nature of certiorari. To call for the records and after going through the same on satisfaction this Hon'ble Court quash and set aside the order and notice dated 07.06.2014 of Compulsory retirement of the Petitioner.

(b) To direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner in employment till the final decision in the writ petition or till attaining the age of 58 years whichever is earlier.

(c) If the notice of compulsory retirement is already implemented, and then grant all consequential benefits as if the Petitioner was not compulsorily retired as per the said notice dated 07.06.2014.

(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition the order/Notice of Compulsory retirement dated 07.06.2014 be stayed and the Petitioner be continued in employment till attaining the age of 58 years.

3. Briefly, the facts are as under:

i. The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). She joined the services of the Respondent-Corporation as a Clerk on 21st July 1977. She was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Clerk on 6th January 1988. She was thereafter promoted to the post of Office Superintendent on 4th November 2011, and further to the post of Administrative Officer on 12th October 2012. The statutory committee of the Respondent–Corporation framed and sanctioned the Regulations which are applicable to the Petitioner. These Regulations were brought into effect in the year 1989 under Section 81(1)(b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the BMC Act), wherein Regulation No. 205 provides for compulsory retirement of employees upon attaining the age of 58 years.

ii. On 1st February 1991, the Municipal Commissioner issued circulars prescribing the procedure to be followed in cases of compulsory retirement and for consideration of continuation in service beyond the age of 55 years, including the constitution of appropriate committees.

iii. In the year 1999, the Respondent–Corporation published a booklet laying down detailed guidelines to be followed in cases of compulsory retirement or continuation of service upon an employee attaining the age of 55 years.

iv. It is the Petitioner’s contention that her case is governed by Regulation No. 205 of the Regulations read with the said procedural guidelines and norms for continuation in service beyond the age of 57 years. However, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent-Corporation failed to adhere to these guidelines and proceeded to compulsorily retire her.

v. The Respondent–Corporation issued a memorandum to the Petitioner stating that on account of frequent leaves availed by her, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (AMC) had decided not to continue her in service beyond the age of 57 years. Thereafter, a notice dated 7th June 2014 was served upon the Petitioner, informing her that her services would stand discontinued with effect from 10th September 2014. The said notice of compulsory retirement was issued under Regulation No. 205(1) of the aforesaid Regulations.

vi. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the aforesaid notice dated 7th June 2014 (impugned notice) has been issued in breach of Regulation No. 205 of the said Regulations.

4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition challenging the impugned notice dated 7th June 2014, whereby the Petitioner has been directe