1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3833/2009 (Secretary, Shri Jiwanlal Mehta, Navyug Vidyalaya ..vs.. Ku.Kusum Mhatre+1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2009 Heard learned Advocate Shri A.V.Bhide for petitioners, learned Advocate Shri M.A.Vaishnav for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Pleader Shri N.S.Khubalkar for respondent No.2. The contention of Advocate Shri Bhide is application for voluntary retirement submitted on 05/1/2009 has been accepted on 07/1/2009 and employee has been relieved on 05/4/2009. He states that till then, there was no grievance for any pressure or forcible procurement of said application. The grievance has been made for the first time on 28/5/2009. According to him, the law does not contemplate any procedure for moving application for voluntary retirement. Learned Advocate Shri Vaishnav for respondent no.1 states that scheme of voluntary retirement is not applicable to respondent No.1 and issue is settled by this Court in judgment reported at 2 2007(4) Mh.L.J. 318 (Sukanya Apte and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others). He further argues that the application, therefore, at the most be viewed as resignation and as it has not been submitted in accordance with Section 7 and Rule 40 of M.E.P.S. Rules, resignation is invalid. He further states that the acceptance of said resignation is not by the Management, but by the School Committee only. He relies upon the finding in this respect reached by the School Tribunal. With the assistance of both the counsel, I have perused the record as also impugned judgment. It is apparent that in view of the judgment stated above, also the judgment reported at 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 862 (Ramcandra Keshavrao Deo ..vs.. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur and others), the provisions in relation to voluntary retirement are not applicable to the services of respondent No.1. Non-compliance with provisions of Section 7 read with Rule 40 is apparent. Though there is some substance in the contention of the Management that complaint about pressure has been made for the first time on 28/5/2009, in view of these findings, the said contention does not remain very relevant. Similarly, the School Tribunal has found that the termination is by resolution of School Committee dated 07/1/2009. The petitioners have not pointed out any resolution or decision of the competent authority i.e. Managing Committee till date. 3 With the result, no case is made out warranting any interference in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Diwale