Mrs. Sulochana Jaganath Waghmare vs Administrator, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Others

B.P. Saraf, J.—The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29 March, 1988 of the Chief Officer, Bombay Housing and Area Development Authority (Respondent No. 2 herein) issued in pursuance of Clause (3) of the MHADA Employees'' Compulsory Retirement Scheme, 1978, informing the petitioner that she shall stand retire from the service of the authority on 30 June 1988 and the order dated 28 June 1988 of the Respondent No. 1 Administrator, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the proposed compulsory retirement.

The petitioner entered the service of the respondents on 11 August 1958 as a Junior Clerk. She was promoted as Senior Clerk on 5 February 1963. She was again promoted as Senior Accounts Clerk from April 1976. On 17 June 1986 she was promoted as Senior Assistant and thereafter vide order dated 5 August 1986 she was promoted to the post of Superintendent, a Class-II post. By order dated 29 May 1987 she was reverted back to the post of Senior Clerk. On 29 September 1987 she was, however, promoted to the post of Junior Assistant and posted as Senior Cashier. On this post she was put on probation for two years. While serving on probation on this post, she was compulsorily retired from service in exercise of the powers under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Employees'' Compulsory Retirement Scheme, 1978 ("Retirement Scheme"). The petitioner has challenged this order of compulsory retirement on the ground, inter alia, that as at the material time she being on probation on the post of Senior Cashier, the retirement scheme had no application to her. According to the petitioner, in the normal course she was due for superannuation in July 1990, and in the absence of the order of compulsory retirement she could have continued till the date.

I have carefully considered the above submission. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The factum of promotion of petitioner to the post of Senior Cashier on 29 September 1987 is also not in dispute. There is also no controversy about the fact that she was on probation on that post for a period of two years. I have perused the scheme of the compulsory retirement of the employees of the respondents at the age of 50/55 years. Clause 1(ii) of the said scheme clearly provides that it shall apply to all employees "except persons employed on work-charge establishment/daily rated establishment or on contract for a specified period or on special terms or on part time or who are on trial/probation or on training". It is clear from the above clause that the scheme is not applicable to persons who are "on probation". The petitioner in the instant case was promoted to the post of Senior Cashier and was on probation for a period of two years. The compulsory retirement scheme, therefore, had no application to her for retirement from the said post. If the employers were not satisfied with her work, she could have been reverted to her original post and the question of her compulsory retirement from that post could have been considered in the light of the provisions of the said scheme. That admittedly was not done in this case. She was not reverted to her original post and was compulsory retired from the post on which she was employed on probation. Such retirement on the face of it is not covered by the Retirement Scheme. The order of retirement cannot be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the same.

As the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation the only relied the petitioner can get is the salary due to her till the date of her superannuation which was in July 1990.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that while compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service she was paid three months salary which the respondents should be permitted to adjust against the amount due to the petitioner in terms of the above order. I do not find any difficulty in accepting this prayer of the respondents. Accordingly, I direct that the respondent shall pay to the petitioner her salary upto the date of her superannuation after adjusting any amount already paid to her. This shall be done within three months from today.

In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.