Bombay High Court
Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik vs Haffkine Institute For Training ... on 30 January, 2020
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, M.S. Karnik
1 914. WPL 302.2020-EDITED.doc
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 302 OF 2020
Dr. Nihigandha Ramchandra Naik ... Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents.
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w. Mr. Ameet Mehta, Amogh Singh
I/b. Solicis Lex for the Petitioner
Ms. P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w. Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for the
Respondent - State.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : 30 JANUARY 2020.
P.C. :-
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Petition was filed on 24 January 2020. Circulation was sought on 28 January 2020. It was taken up immediately by us on the next date i.e. on 29 January 2020 because the Petitioner appointed as an Assistant Director in the Respondent No. 2 - Haffkine Institute for Training Research and Testing, holding charge of Director is to retire on 31 January 2020.
2 914. WPL 302.2020-EDITED.doc
3. Petitioner argues that the Governing Council of Respondent No.2 - Institution has passed a Resolution as far back as on 3 October 2011 wherein the age of retirement of employees of the Institution such as the Petitioner has been increased to 62 years. Reliance is also placed on the Recruitment Rules for the post of the Assistant Director wherein it is stated that the age of retirement of the Assistant Director, who is a recognized Post Graduate teacher, shall retire at 62. It is contended that the Governing Council has powers to prescribe the service conditions.
4. Yesterday, when the matter was called out, a representative of the Respondent - Institution was present and sought time till today for appointing an advocate and to produce record. However, none appears for the Institution.
5. The learned Government Pleader requests for time to file the reply and states there are various issues including the Petitioner is not being a Post Graduate teacher and that the approval of the State Government is necessary for increasing the date of superannuation as there are financial implications.
6. It will not be proper to dispose of the Petition giving no opportunity to the Respondents. The decision will determine service tenure of many employees of the Institute. We have given our anxious consideration to the aspect of grant of interim relief. To 3 914. WPL 302.2020-EDITED.doc grant interim relief, which would be in the realm of equity, the conduct of the Petitioner in approaching the Court in time must be considered. It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner, after noticing an entry in the software maintained in the Ayush Department of the State of Maharashtra, came to know that she will retire on 31 January 2020. The Petitioner has made representation on 14 January 2020. Neither in the Petition nor in the representation, that there is any assertion that the Petitioner did not know of the entry in the software earlier. Not that the entry for the first time was made on 9 January 2020. Respondents assert that the entry is in the software for over two years.
7. At this stage it is difficult to accept the oral contention of the Petitioner being ignorant of the date, because the Petitioner herself is in charge of the Institution and a representation is made on behalf of the other employees as well. The Petitioner by approaching the Court last minute cannot seek an interim relief of this nature. Interim relief is refused. If the Petitioner demonstrates that the age of retirement is 62 years, the action of superannuation of 31 January 2020 can always be set aside. The superannuation of the Petitioner scheduled on 31 January 2020 will be subject to further orders passed by this Court.
8. Place the Petition on board for disposal on 4 February 2020 at 3.00 p.m. 4 914. WPL 302.2020-EDITED.doc
9. Reply affidavit be filed by 3 February 2020. We direct the Respondent No.2 - Institution to represent itself with all the record. We direct the Institute, through an affidavit of a responsible officer, to place its stand on record regarding the age of superannuation in the Institute and whether according to the Institute for increasing the age of retirement approval of the State Government is necessary or not. The learned Government Pleader states this order will be intimated to the Respondent No.2 - Institution.
M.S. KARNIK, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J.
Jyoti P. Digitally signed
by Jyoti P. Pawar
Date: 2020.01.31
Pawar 17:08:03 +0530