7.wp.234-09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.234 OF 2009 Rambhau s/o. Pandurang Ghanwat. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S.G. Aney, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Sameer Vaidya & Mr.P.R. Arjunwadkar, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.R. Dhond, Advocate a/w. Mr.M.S. Karnik, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition, the petitioner makes grievance against the order compulsorily retiring him. The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and was serving as Civil Judge, Senior Division. The challenge to the order is that he has been compulsorily retired on completion of age of 50 years though he had not entered the judicial service after he 7.wp.234-09 2 completed the age of 35 years. The relevant Rule, is Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The relevant Rule is sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 which reads as under : 10. Age of retirement :- (1) ..... (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) of this rule, the appropriate authority, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, by giving [notice of three months] in writing in Form 30 or in Form 31 as the case may be, or three month's pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, have the absolute right to retire- (a) any Gazetted Government servant under the rule making control of the State Government :- (i) if he had entered Government service under any Government in India, before attaining the age of thirty-five years, after he has attained the age of fifty years, and (ii) in any other case, after he has attained the age of fifty-five years; [Provided that a Government servant who holds a Class III post in a substantive capacity but is holding a Class I or Class II post in an officiating capacity, shall, in case it is decided to retire him from service while holding a Class I or Class II post, in the public interest, be allowed on his request in writing to the appropriate authority to continue in service in Class III post which he holds in a substantive capacity.] (b) any Government servant who holds a post in Class III service of the State, either pensionable or non-pensionable, after he has attained the age of fifty-five years; 7.wp.234-09 3 (c) any Government servant who holds a post in Class IV service of the State and who is recruited in Government service on or after the 21st September, 1970, after he has attained the age of fifty-five years." 2. Perusal of the above quoted rule, show that a Government Servant if he had entered Government service under any Government in India, before attaining the age of 35 years, he can be compulsorily retired on attaining age of 50 years. It is an admitted position that the petitioner when he was selected and appointed in Judicial service was serving as a Public Prosecutor. It is not in dispute before us that the Public Prosecutor is in the service of the Government of Maharashtra. Therefore, we do not find any error in the Government taking into consideration the entry of the petitioner in Government service at the point when he joined the service as a Public Prosecutor. 3. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.S. Malshetty vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 1992(3) Bom.C.R. 724 to contend that as service of the petitioner as a Public 7.wp.234-09 4 Prosecutor amounts practice at the bar, it cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of Rule 10(4) of the Pension Rules. Perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench in V.S. Malshetty (supra) shows that there the Court was considering the question whether the service rendered by a person in the post of Public Prosecutor can be considered as a practice at the bar for the purpose of Rule 53 of the Pension Rules. For the purpose of consideration of the question which arises in this Petition, that judgment is not at all relevant. 4. We have also seen the record of the petitioner. We find that no fault can be found with the decision to retire the petitioner compulsorily on attaining age of 50 years. There is no substance in the Petition. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)