1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1967 OF 2010 (Suresh Wasudeo Pande vs. The Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Akola) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 17, 2010. Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent. Shri Mirza, learned counsel contends that the petitioner was in Provincial Transport Service and hence as per Clause 41 of 16.10.1999 Settlement, his age of retirement must be treated as 60 years. He points out that this settlement is in fact continuation of earlier settlements. In the alternative he relies upon the appointment order dated 09.05.1969 issued by private employer to show that the age of retirement of the petitioner was 60 years as per clause 12 therein. He contends that there was also an assurance in addition and as per that assurance the petitioner could not have been retired prior to attaining the age of 60 years. Shri Wankhede, learned counsel contends that the age of retirement of 60 years is applicable to employees of Provincial Transport Service and the petitioner was not the employee of such service. He 2 points out that he was working with private employer viz. Telhara Transport Service. He further states that the law on the point is appreciated correctly by the learned Member of Industrial Court and he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 569 of 1993 with connected matters delivered on 20.11.2006. From the perusal of settlement on which the petitioner has placed reliance, it is apparent that the petitioner has to establish that he was employee of Provincial Transport Service and then only he can claim the age of retirement of 60 years. The petitioner has failed to show such employment. The appointment order issued by private employer mentioning age of retirement to be 60 years is of no use in the light of specific provision in the settlement. Though the petitioner has alleged that there was assurance, such assurance has not been established on record and the petitioner has not taken any timely steps for seeing that it is implemented. I do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by the Industrial Court. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.