1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 5303 of 2011 Sau.Goura Arjunrao Khodke Vs. Panchasheel Vachanalaya, thr. Its President Rajarambapu Patil Marg, Nagpur. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Abdul Bashir Adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. C.V. Kale, Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 1 st December, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on 06.08.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under section 30(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 for staying the order of termination. The petitioner is the original complainant. The petitioner was working as a Librarian with the respondent since the year 1987. According to her, the respondent could not have illegally terminated her services by an order dated 25.02.2011 informing her that she ceased to be a Librarian after 31.05.2011 on superannuation as she had completed the age of 60 years. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no age of retirement in the establishment of the respondent and certain persons who had retired from government service are working in the respondent establishment. According to the petitioner, before terminating the services of the petitioner it was necessary for the respondent to obtain the permission of the Director 2 of Libraries in view of the provisions of the Govt. Circular dated 13.05.2004 and since the permission was not obtained by the respondent before terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service. The order passed by the Industrial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The Industrial Court was prima facie of the opinion that the services of the petitioner were not terminated but she had ceased to be a Librarian on 31.05.2011 on superannuation. The Industrial Court found that some persons working in the respondent establishment were more than 60 years of age but they were working with the respondent after their retirement from Nagpur Municipal Corporation on honorarium for administering the establishment. Since the petitioner was working as a Librarian, according to the Industrial Court, she was required to be retired at the age of 60 years. The Industrial Court was of the view that the permission of the Director of Libraries was not required as this was not the case of termination but was a case of retirement on superannuation. There is nothing wrong with the reasons recorded by the Industrial Court for rejecting the application for grant of interim relief. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.