1 pil83.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 83 OF 2011 Shri R. R. Tripathi. ....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors. ....Respondents Mr. R. R. Tripathi, petitioner in person present. Mr. Jay Bhatia, advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (UOI). Mr. V.D.Patil, G.P. for respondent State. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH GODBOLE, J 11 August 2011 P.C. 1. By this petition, purported to be a public interest litigation, the petitioner has challenged extension of service granted to Mr. A.V. Parasnis, Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State. The petitioner had not produced copy of the impugned order of extension, but at the hearing, petitioner appearing as party in person has produced copy of the Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 30/6/2011 which reads as under : 2 pil83.11 “Resolution :- The competent authority has conveyed for extension of Service of Shri A.V.Parasnis, IPS (MH: 1976), Director General and Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai for a period of three months beyond the date of his superannuation i.e. from 30th June 2011.” 2. It is contended that such extension could not have been granted under Rule 16 of All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 because extension can be given in public interest only when a member of the service is dealing with budget work or is working as a full time member of a committee which is to be wound up within short period, with prior approval of the Central Government. According to the petitioner, Mr. Parasnis is not dealing with the budget work nor he is working as full time member of any committee. It is also submitted that the State Government constituted a committee on 22nd June, 2011 i.e. just 8 days before the date of retirement of Shri Parasnis or superannuation in order to grant extension to Shri Parasnis. 3. It is, however, not the contention of the petitioner that the Central Government has not given prior approval for such extension to Mr. Parasnis. The petitioner, in fact, does not dispute the fact that the Central Government has given prior approval. In fact the petitioner has joined the 3 pil83.11 Central Government as well as the Prime Minister of India; and the petitioner is challenging extension granted to Mr. Parasnis for a period of 3 months with prior approval of the Central Government. The order of extension is taken on record and marked Annexure- X for identification. The Central Government has granted prior approval on 28th June, 2011 for granting such extension of service to Mr. Parasnis beyond the date of superannuation on 30.6.2011. The said letter dated 28/6/2011 is marked as Annexure – Y for identification. 4. Mr. Patil, learned Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra, and Mr. Jay Bhatia for the Central Government have opposed the petition and raised preliminary objection that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters as per the settled legal position. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has referred in paragraph-8 of the petition regarding curtailing the rights and opportunity of the other officers of the police department and therefore petition is not bonafide public litigation but is filed at the instance of other officers in police service. It is further submitted that in case this Court were to entertain this petition, the respondent No. 1 and respondent No.3 may be granted 4 weeks’ time to file affidavit in reply. 4 pil83.11 5. In rejoinder the petitioner submits that public interest litigation is maintainable. He refers to recent order of the Apex Court issuing notice on the writ petition against the Uttar Pradesh Government challenging the appointment of Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh as the State Cabinet Secretary of the State of UP. 6. We have examined the said aspect. As regards reliance placed by the petitioner on the recent Apex Court order issuing notice on the writ petition challenging appointment of the Cabinet Secretary by State Government of UP, it appears that the said appointment is challenged on the ground that the appointee is neither an IAS officer nor officer of the PCS. In the facts of this case, the present petitioner did not challenge appointment of Mr. Parasnis as a Director General of Police when Mr. Parasnis was appointed in the said post on 1st March, 2011. It is only after extension is granted to Mr. Parasnis for a period of 3 months with effect from 1/7/2011 that the petitioner has filed this petition. 7. Having heard the petitioner- party in person and the learned counsel for the Central Government and the learned counsel for the State 5 pil83.11 Government; we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage because the extension granted to Mr. Parasnis on the post of Director General of Police is only for a period of 3 months commencing from 1st July, 2011. If the respondents were to be granted time to file affidavit in reply and further time was to be granted to the petitioner to file affidavit in rejoinder, by that time hardly 15 days’ time would remain before expiry of the period of extension granted to Mr. Parasnis. Hence without expressing any opinion on the question of maintainability of the present PIL, we dispose of this petition. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH GODBOLE, J