1wp-961-2010 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.961/2010 Jagdish C. Suryawanshi ..Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents. Mr M.S.Karnik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr S.R. Nargolkar,A.G.P.,for the Respondent No.1. Mr A.S.Desai, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 4TH FEBRUARY,2010 2wp-961-2010 P.C.:- 1. Admittedly, the petitioner was working in the post of Additional Executive Director with respondent No.2 Federation. He was reaching the age of superannuation on 31.7.2009. Therefore, on 24.6.2009 a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors granting extension to the petitioner for a period of one year from the date of his retirement. That resolution was sent for approval to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as per the requirement of bye-laws. The Registrar, admittedly, declined to approve grant of extension. The petitioner or respondent No.2 did not challenge that order. It appears that the petitioner approached the State Government for grant of approval to extension/reappointment of the petitioner in service and the Government, surprisingly, by order dated 6.8.2009 granted approval.It appears that though the Government does not have any power to grant any approval under the bye- laws because of the approval granted by the Government, the petitioner continued in service. It appears that in some Public Interest Litigation this Court had passed an order restraining the Government from granting extension of service to a retired Government Servant without taking leave of the Court. The Government, it appears , realized that the 3wp-961-2010 approval granted by it to the re-appointment/extension of the petitioner s service, was in violation of the order passed by this Court in a public interest litigation which restrained the Government from granting any extension in service without seeking leave of the Court and, therefore, the Government on 29.1.2009 made an order that the petitioner should not be continued in service of Respondent No.2. The petitioner makes a grievance against that order dated 29.1.2009 in this petition. It is clear from the facts narrated above that the petitioner retired from service on 31.7.2009. His reappointment/extension in terms of Bye-Law G.1.3 requires approval of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. That approval was not granted by the Registrar. It was refused. The petitioner accepted that order. Therefore, really speaking, from the date of the order of the Registrar, the petitioner could not have continued in the service of Respondent No.2. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Bye Law No.G.1.27 contemplates approval of the Registrar to the appointment and not to extension. But, we do not find any substance in this submission because when extension in service is granted to a retired Government servant, it really amounts to his reappointment. Perusal of the document at Exh.I, which is a translation of the order passed by the 4wp-961-2010 Government granting approval shows that even the petitioner termed his extension as reappointment. In any case, the petitioner, as also respondent No.2 were of the opinion that approval of the Registrar is necessary and therefore the Registrar was approached. Now, they cannot turn around and say that no approval was necessary. We find that as the continuance of the petitioner in service after the Registrar refused to grant approval, itself, was contrary to law, therefore, the petitioner cannot make any grievance against the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by the State Government. In any case, it cannot be said that the State Government has no authority to make that order because under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,1960 the Government has the powers to issue directions to the Co-operative Societies. In the result, the petition is rejected. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI,J)