IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2386 OF 2001 Vijayalaxmi Ravindra Singbal .....Petitioner V/s. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, through the Registrar and Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr.Rajesh Datar, for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Govt. Pleader, for the State. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JUNE 17, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Judge of City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay. Subsequently, a willingness of the petitioner was sought for appointment to the Post of Member of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bombay. According to the petitioner, the age of superannuation in connection with the post of the Member of the said Tribunal was 62 years and on that basis, the petitioner opted for the said post. The petitioner subsequently communicated her willingness for being appointed on the said post. The petitioner assumed her charge as a Member of the said Tribunal. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the Committee has taken decision not to extend the service of the petitioner regarding benefit of increase of retirement age from 60 years. The said decision was taken as back as on 27-10-1999. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even if she had completed 2 60 years on 12-10-2001, by virtue of the Notification the petitioner would retire on 62 years of age i.e. On 12-10-2003. The petitioner has challenged the decision of retiring her from service with effect from 12-10-2001 i.e. the age on which she completed 60 years of service. The petitioner has therefore, prayed that she may be allowed to serve upto 62 years of age. 3. It is an admitted fact that by now the petitioner is more than 65 years of age and now there is no question of asking the petitioner to serve upto 62 years of age. That apart, the decision regarding not giving extension to the petitioner to serve beyond 60 years was taken in the year 1999. The petition was subsequently filed in the year 2001. The services of the petitioner came to an end by way of retirement on completion of her 60 years. The High Court on its administrative side had already taken decision in the year 1999 not to extend the service of the petitioner beyond 60 years and accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner was rejected, in our view, it cannot be said that the said decision is illegal or arbitrary in any manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to substantiate any arguments on this aspect. We do not find any substance in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to say that the petitioner is entitled for her retiral and pensionary benefits on the basis that she has worked upto the age of 60 years. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)