7.wp.9971-11.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9971 OF 2011 Arjun Sadhu Ghadge ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Vishwasrao Deokar for petitioner Mr. A.B.Vagyani AGP for Respondents CORAM : S.A.BOBDE AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2011. P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner's contention is that he shall be considered for retirement at the age of 62 years instead of 60 as is sought to be done by the Respondents now. According to Mr. Vagyani, learned AGP, a Review Committee has been set up for considering whether a particular employee is entitled to be continued upto the age of 62 years in pursuance of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2093 of 2011 Satish Kundanlal Agarwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, with connected matters (Coram: B.H.Marlapalle & 1 7.wp.9971-11.doc Smt. Nishita Mhatre, JJ.) dated 30th September, 2011. Mr. Vagyani further stated that a Performance Review Committee could not consider the petitioner's proposal dated 6.9.2011 moved by the respondent no.4-College earlier, however, it will now consider the petitioner's application and even if it is found that the petitioner is entitled for extension upto the age of 62 years, he will be granted such extension irrespective of the fact that he has retired in the meanwhile, along with back wages, if necessary. Statement is accepted. 3. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. 4. Order accordingly. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ S.A.BOBDE, J. ] 2