Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2009. Case: Sadashiv Vishnu Rayate Vs 1. State of Maharashtra, Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary, 2. High Court of Bombay. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 4901 of 2009 |
| Counsel | P. R. Arjunwadkar, C. R. Sonawane, G. S. Godbole |
| Judges | P. B. Majmudar & R. M. Savant, JJ. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act, 2005; Constitution of India, 1950 â Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | June 25, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
P. B. Majmudar, J.
-
Rule.
-
Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
-
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order of respondent No.1 dated 26-03-2008, by which order the petitioner has been compulsory retired from service. The petitioner was serving as a Judicial Officer and at the relevant time, was serving as Ad Hoc District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. At the time of completion of 53 years, the case of the petitioner was reviewed for continuation by the High Court on its administrative side. After considering the service record of the petitioner for the preceding five years, the administration of the High Court took a decision not to continue the petitioner in service as the High Court was satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by continuing the petitioner. In terms of the aforesaid order passed by the Review Committee of the High Court, that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No.1. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner on two grounds i.e. the power of review was not available with the High Court at the time when the petitioner completed 53 years of age and such powers could have exercised only at the time when a Judicial Officer attains the age of 50 and 55 years and that the service record of the petitioner was not that bad, which may justify taking such action.
-
The High Court has filed affidavit-in-reply to this petition, which is at Page 64 in the compilation, dealing with the claims and contentions raised in the petition.
-
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case could have been taken in review at the time when the petitioner reaches the age of 55 years and in between it was not permissible to take his case in review at the age of 53 years, as it could have been done only when the petitioner reach the age of 50 years and 55 years. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a copy of the letter dated 14-10-2008 addressed to the Honourable Chief Justice of this High Court by the Honourable Chief Justice of India, a copy of which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been received by the petitioner on an application under the Right to Information Act. Based on the said letter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such a review is permissible in case of a judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial