Shri Ashok Madhusudhan Ganapatye vs State of Goa and The Goa Engineering College, Government of Goa

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.—The case of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 341/2009 is identical to the Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 609/2008. We have extensively referred to the argument of Shri Supekar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in our judgment in Writ Petition No. 609/2008. In such circumstances, we find that there are no denials made of statements and averments in the Writ Petition. This Writ Petition must succeed for the same reasons as are set out in our judgment in Writ Petition No. 609/2008. In this case, there is no Affidavit-in-reply. There is no argument of delay raised. However, Writ Petition is filed on 20th January 2009. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been retired prematurely on 30th October, 2004. It is the case of the Petitioner that he ought to have been retired on attaining the age of 60 years and that he would have attained on 30th October, 2006. There is no explanation as to why the Petitioner has approached this Court on 20th January, 2009 and, therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to same relief as Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 609/2008 and all retirement benefits would be admissible to him with effect from the date of filing of Writ Petition namely 20th January, 2009.