1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.160 OF 2009 (State of Maharashtra and another vs. Dr. Sudhir Bapuji Karlekar) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 17, 2009 Heard Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners, and Shri Harsulkar, learned Counsel for the respondent. The petition is directed against the order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby original application of the respondent filed against the communication dated 10.11.2006 issued by the petitioners rejecting application of the respondent for voluntary retirement dated 3.5.2006 came to be allowed. Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners, states that the respondent had given notice of voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years on 3.5.2006 with effect from 2.8.2006. It is contended that the said 2 application was rejected by the petitioners on 10.11.2006 on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry. It is submitted that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter while quashing the communication dated 10.11.2006. Shri Harsulkar, learned Counsel for the respondent, supports the impugned order. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties and perused Rule 66(1) of the Maharashtra Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1982. The Tribunal in view of the said Rule has considered the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and came to the conclusion that since the petitioners failed to take a decision of refusal to grant permission to the respondent for voluntary retirement before expiry of 90 days from the date when the application was submitted by the respondent for voluntary retirement, it was not open for the petitioners to do so after 90 days by an order dated 10.11.2006. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj 3