Mahila Vikas Mandal vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 October, 2013
42 As has been observed above, in the instant matter, the
directives issued under the impugned Government Resolution in
clauses 1.2 to 1.7, are contrary to the express provisions of the Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. An order, issued against an
employee, directing him to retire compulsorily before attaining age
of superannuation, has been set aside by the High Court in the
matter of Sukanya Apte & another Vs. State of Maharashtra &
others, reported in 2007(5) Bom.C.R. 472 and in the matter of
Namdeo Bikkad & another Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition
::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:29:38 :::
{173}
wp416812.odt
No.1772 of 1997, decided on 14.07.2006), holding that since the
provisions of MEPS Act and Rules framed thereunder do not
provide for compulsory retirement of an employee, such an order is
unsustainable in law. In the instant matter, directives have been
issued by the Government under the Government Resolution,
which are clearly in contravention of the Act and the Rules.