Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. According to the petitioners, all these petitioners are appointed prior to 2005 that is even prior to the draft rules framed. At the time of their appointments, the age of retirement was 60 years and they would be governed by the recruitment rules and practice as prevailing on the date of their appointments.

4. The petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 5307 of 2018 delivered at Aurangabad and the judgment dated 29.11.2013 in Writ Petition No. 4157 of 2013 delivered at Nagpur. The Wakf Board relies on the judgment dated 06th March, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2006 delivered at Aurangabad, in which the Division Bench of this Court has held that, the age of retirement would be 58 years, whereas in the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court came to the conclusion that, the age of retirement would be 60 years that age of retirement is prescribed at the time of entry in service.

3 The learned AGP for the Respondents/ State submits that such revised draft rules have still not been received by the State.

4 What intrigues us is that when this Court had passed an order on 01.03.2017 directing the State Government to accord sanction to the rules, the learned AGP did not point out to this Court that the revised draft rules have not reached the State. We are disturbed by the conduct of the State in informing us today that the revised draft rules never reached them. 5 As such, we direct Respondent No.3/ Wakf Board to submit a copy of the Revised Draft Rules, which they have forwarded by the covering letter dated 21.01.2015, to the Principal Secretary, Minorities Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, by a hand delivery which will be sent by the special messenger within TWO WEEKS from today. Thereafter, the said rules would be accorded sanction by the State Government within SIX WEEKS after receiving them.

26. In Vimal Kumari vs. State of Haryana and others, (1998) 4 SCC 114, the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with the *20* FB5855o19group.odt effect of the draft rules and held that if the draft rules are intended to be notified in the near future, they can be followed in the interregnum to meet emergent situations. They cannot be followed if there is no intention to notify the draft rules. This is because they are yet to acquire a statutory character under Article 309-proviso. As the draft rules were not notified for about eight years and neither did the Government offer any explanation for not doing so, it was held that the draft rules could not be invoked for regulating promotions. The draft rules were prepared in 1983 and they were lying in nascent state since then.

28. In Union of India through Government of Pondicherry and another vs. V. Ramkrishnan and others, (2005) 8 SCC 394, it was held that the rules validly framed under *21* FB5855o19group.odt proviso to Article 309, existing at the time of adhoc promotion, remained operative till replaced by another set of validly framed rules. Promotions based on draft rules, which were contrary to the rules then in force, were held to be invalid. This was the exact situation when the Division Bench of this Court dealt with Ghulam Mustaffa Khan (supra). The 1964 Regulations were in force and the proposed/draft regulations were not approved. Hence, the Division Bench could not have relied upon the draft regulations when the 1964 Regulations were in operation.