Bombay High Court Reinstates Professor Retired at 60; Holds State Cannot Retrospectively Reduce Retirement Age Fixed at 62 in Her Original Appointment Order
Bombay High Court Allows Professor’s Challenge to Premature Retirement; Sets Aside MAT Order and Directs Continuation in Service Until Age 62
Facts
Dr. Alka Krishnarao Chougale, a Professor in the Zoology Department of the Institute of Science, Mumbai, challenged her retirement from service at the age of 60 instead of 62.
She had been appointed as an Associate Professor on 25 January 2012. At that time, the Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011 was in force and prescribed the retirement age for the relevant category of employees, including Associate Professors at the Institute of Science, as 62 years.
Importantly, her appointment order itself expressly recorded her retirement age as 62. She would therefore have attained the stipulated retirement age on 31 August 2027.
However, the Institute issued an order dated 28 August 2025, retiring her with effect from 31 August 2025 when she attained the age of 60.
The decision was based upon a subsequent Government Resolution dated 12 July 2016, which reconsidered the earlier policy concerning retirement ages. The petitioner contended that this later GR had been wrongly applied retrospectively to her and that she was retired without prior notice.
She challenged her retirement before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in OA No. 919 of 2025.
The MAT rejected her claim on 28 August 2025, following which she approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226.
Issues
The principal issues before the Bombay High Court were:
- Whether the petitioner had acquired a right to remain in service until 62 years because that retirement age was expressly incorporated into her 2012 appointment order.
- Whether the subsequent Government Resolution dated 12 July 2016 could retrospectively reduce her retirement age from 62 to 60.
- Whether Clause 2.2 of the 2016 GR applied to an employee whose appointment order itself already fixed retirement at 62.
- Whether reducing the petitioner’s retirement age without prior notice amounted to arbitrary administrative action and violation of natural justice.
- Whether the earlier Bombay High Court decision in Prof. Dr. Yeshwant Kondji Khillare v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the validity of the 2016 GR, governed the petitioner’s case.
- Whether the MAT erred in relying upon that precedent to reject the petitioner’s claim.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that her appointment order expressly stipulated 62 years as the age of retirement.
Therefore, there was no question of requiring a subsequent order extending her retirement age from 60 to 62.
She contended that the respondents had wrongly interpreted Clause 2.2 of the GR dated 12 July 2016 and retrospectively reduced an already fixed condition of service.
The petitioner clarified that she was not challenging the validity of the 2016 GR itself. Her case was that the GR had been incorrectly applied to her individual service conditions.
She further argued that the MAT wrongly relied upon Prof. Dr. Yeshwant Kondji Khillare, because the facts and legal question involved in that decision were materially different.
Respondents’ Arguments
The State argued that fixing the retirement age of government employees falls within the policy-making domain of the Government.
According to the State, the petitioner’s retirement age was governed by the Government Resolution dated 12 July 2016.
It relied upon Prof. Dr. Yeshwant Kondji Khillare, where the Bombay High Court had upheld the validity of that GR.
Since the policy itself had already survived judicial scrutiny, the State argued that the MAT correctly rejected the petitioner’s challenge and that no interference under writ jurisdiction was warranted.
Analysis of the Law
Retirement Age Was an Express Condition of Appointment
The High Court first emphasised an important admitted fact: the petitioner’s appointment order dated 25 January 2012 itself fixed her retirement age at 62 years.
The State did not dispute this.
The stipulation was based upon the Government Resolution dated 5 March 2011, which was in force when she was appointed.
There were no separate statutory service rules governing the teaching staff of the Institute of Science. Government Resolutions issued from time to time therefore governed their service conditions, including retirement age.
Accordingly, the Court treated retirement at 62 as an express condition governing the petitioner’s appointment.
The real question was therefore not whether the Government possessed power to prescribe retirement ages generally, but whether it could retrospectively reduce an already fixed retirement age from 62 to 60.
Interpretation of the 2016 Government Resolution
The Court rejected the respondents’ interpretation of Clause 2.2.
The authorities had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not possess a separate order specifically extending her retirement age from 60 to 62.
The High Court held this reasoning to be erroneous.
Her appointment order itself already stipulated retirement at 62. Therefore, no separate extension order was necessary.
The Court consequently held that Clause 2.2 of the Government Resolution dated 12 July 2016 did not apply to the petitioner’s case.
Accrued Right and Retrospective Reduction
The Court held that once the petitioner’s appointment order fixed her retirement age at 62 under the policy prevailing at the time, a valuable and accrued right arose in her favour to remain in service until that age.
Reducing the retirement age to 60 by subsequently applying the 2016 GR retrospectively was impermissible.
The Court additionally found that the retirement decision was taken without giving the petitioner prior notice.
It characterised the action as a wholly arbitrary exercise of administrative power and a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Precedent Analysis
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava
The High Court relied substantially upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538.
The Supreme Court had held that although rules under Article 309 may be framed retrospectively, rights and benefits already earned or acquired under existing rules cannot subsequently be taken away through retrospective amendment.
The Bombay High Court applied that principle with even greater force to a Government Resolution.
A Government Resolution operates merely as an executive instruction or administrative order. If even statutory rules framed under Article 309 cannot retrospectively destroy accrued rights, an executive GR certainly cannot achieve that result.
Prof. Dr. Yeshwant Kondji Khillare v. State of Maharashtra
The MAT had relied upon this Bombay High Court decision to reject the petitioner’s claim.
The High Court distinguished it.
In Yeshwant Kondji Khillare, nine employees had directly challenged the validity of the Government Resolution dated 12 July 2016.
The Court in that case recognised the State Government’s policy-making authority to prescribe and alter the service conditions, including retirement ages, of employees of State universities and institutions.
However, the present Division Bench pointed out that Yeshwant Kondji Khillare did not consider whether a right already accrued to an individual employee under an earlier GR could retrospectively be taken away by the 2016 GR.
Therefore, although the 2016 GR itself remained valid, the earlier precedent did not answer the materially different question before the Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court drew a clear distinction between:
the Government’s power to prescribe retirement age prospectively, and
the Government’s ability to retrospectively destroy a retirement-age entitlement already incorporated into an employee’s appointment.
The first was within the State’s policy-making authority.
The second was impermissible in the petitioner’s circumstances.
The petitioner had entered service under an appointment order expressly providing that she would retire at 62. The 2016 GR could not subsequently be used to alter that condition retrospectively and retire her at 60.
The Court held that the Director of the Institute of Science had therefore unilaterally altered an existing service condition and prematurely retired the petitioner two years before the retirement age specified in her appointment.
The MAT consequently erred in sustaining the action.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal’s judgment dated 28 August 2025.
More importantly, the Court granted substantive restorative relief.
It directed that Dr. Alka Krishnarao Chougale be:
- reinstated in service forthwith;
- reinstated no later than seven days from uploading of the judgment; and
- permitted to continue in service until she attains the age of 62 years, subject to any other law in force.
Key Ratio
Where an employee’s appointment order expressly fixes retirement at 62 under the policy then in force, a subsequent Government Resolution cannot retrospectively reduce that retirement age to 60 and take away the accrued service right.
Case Details
Case: Dr. Alka Krishnarao Chougale v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5179 of 2026
Judges: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna
Judgment by: Justice Suman Shyam
Reserved on: 13 August 2026
Date: 19 August 2026
Result: Writ petition allowed; MAT order set aside; petitioner directed to be reinstated within seven days and allowed to continue in service until attaining 62 years.
