1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4534 OF 2009 (Baburao Sonaji Jaiwal vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4535 of 2009 (Vinayak s/o Karbhari Dhoble and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.M.M.Ghusale,Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. V.D.Rakh, AGP, Mrs.R.K.Ladda, AGP, for respondent State. Mr. A.S.Bajaj, Adv. for respondent nos 2 to 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE :11th NOVEMBER, 2009. ... 1. Learned Counsel Shri S.N.Pagare submits that he be discharged from the matter as he has offered his no objection to Mr. M.M.Ghusale, to appear for the petitioners. The appearance of Mr.S.N.Pagare is discharged from the matters. 2. The petitioners filed an application for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by respondent no.2 dt.4.8.2008. The 2 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders basic criteria under the Scheme was that the voluntary retirement could be obtained by an employee who has completed age of 45 years and whose remaining period of service was minimum of two years. The respondent, thereafter, took another decision and changed the criteria for claiming voluntary retirement by introducing a clause that an employee not only should complete age of 45 years and above but remaining period of his service should be minimum five years. The petitioners have grievance with this amendment of the policy on the ground that the respondent has no authority to change the policy. Petitioners submit that in old age they have to climb on the electric poles and discharge other duties requiring rigorous physical involvement. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by respondent nos. 2 to 5. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Bajaj submitted that the respondent Board is entitled to modify, clarify or amend the policy which was earlier adopted under the resolution passed by the Board. After introduction of the Scheme, large number of employees applied under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and, in the interest of administration the Board 3 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s Orders decided to change the criteria of Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The learned Counsel further made a statement that, as such, under the Scheme not a single employee, in whose case two years service was remaining, was allowed voluntary retirement. 5. After considering the reply filed and the submissions advanced, we find that there is no error in the respondent Board taking decision in the best interest of administration. We do not notice any mala fides in the decision making process. No case is made out by the petitioners for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] (agp:wp4534-09gr