(1) 32-WP-5256-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5256/2026 DR. ATEEQUR RAHEMAN S/O ZULFIKAR KHAN AND ANR. VS STATE OF MAHA., THR. ITS SEC., URBAN DEV., DEPT., MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI AND ORS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N.D. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. Challenge is to the communication dated 03.02.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3 – Health Officer, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, directing the retirement of the petitioners with effect from 31.07.2026. 3. The petitioners’ case is that by way of amendment to the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, as also the order passed by this Court in similar petitions, their retirement age should be extended to 60 years. The petitioner, though submitted that this Court has passed order in favour of similarly placed officers, but is relying on interim order and not final order. 4. In the light of above, on 04.08.2026, the following order was passed:- “Heard. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for petitioners is not pressing for relief as regards petitioner No.1, he being Class-A officer. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he has been initially appointed as Compounder. Later on, he was promoted as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic). He possesses qualification of B.A.M.S. 3. The petitioner’s reliance for extension of the age of superannuation is to the notification dated 23.02.2022, which provides that the officers in District Civil Surgeon, Specialist, Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:10908-DB (2) 32-WP-5256-2026 Police Surgeon and Medical Officers Cadres in Maharashtra Medical and Health Services, Group A, shall retire from the service on attaining the age of 60 years. 4. Learned A.G.P. submits that minimum qualification prescribed for appointment of these officers is M.B.B.S.The petitioner, though appointed as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic), is not possessing the said qualification and, therefore, the benefit of notification under question is not applicable to his case. 5. Learned A.G.P. seeks time to place on record the relevant rules/notification, prescribing minimum qualification of M.B.B.S. to the posts mentioned in the notification. Time granted. 6. List in the week commencing 17.08.2026.” 5. Thus, the petitioner has restricted the relief for Petitioner No. 2, who was promoted as Medical Officer (Ayurvedic). Admittedly, he possesses the qualification of BAMS and is working with Nagpur Municipal Corporation. 6. By way of notification dated 23.02.2022, the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 came to be amended, particularly Rule 10 thereof. Certain provisos have been added to Rule 10. The petitioners’ reliance is on the following proviso:- "Provided that, the Officers in District Civil Surgeon, Specialist, Police Surgeon and Medical Officers Cadres in Maharashtra Medical and Health Services, Group A and Medical Officers Cadre in Maharashtra Medical Insurance Services, Group A (In Pay Level in Pay Matrix S-20 and above as per Seventh Pay Commission) shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 62 years." 7. Thus, the services of the officers mentioned in the aforesaid proviso have been extended till 62 years. The provision itself suggests that the benefit of extension of service is available to a particular class of officers. This does not extend to the Medical Officers employed with the Corporation. 8. The petitioners’ counsel now submits that he is relying upon the other proviso, which provides for extension of the retirement age to 60 years. This proviso reads as under:- “Provided further that, the Officers in Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and District Health officer Cadres in Maharashtra Medical and Health Services, Group-A and Officers in Director (Medical), Deputy Director (Medical) and Medical Superintendent Cadres in Maharashtra Medical and Insurance Services, Group-A (In Pay Level and Pay Matrix S-23 and above as per Seventh Kartikeya (3) 32-WP-5256-2026 Pay Commission) shall retire from the service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.” 9. Thus, the officers mentioned under the said proviso will retire on attaining the age of 60 years. The category consists of Officers in Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and District Health Officer Cadres in Maharashtra Medical and Health Services, Group-A and Officers in Director (Medical), Deputy Director (Medical) and Medical Superintendent Cadres in Maharashtra Medical and Insurance Services, Group-A (In Pay Level and Pay Matrix S-23 and above as per Seventh Pay Commission). 10. The petitioner does not belong to any of these categories. As stated earlier, he is a Medical Officer (Ayurvedic), Group A, employed with Nagpur Municipal Corporation. 11. The employer thought it proper to release Petitioner No. 2 on attaining the age of 58 years in terms of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation Services (Recruitment and Classification of Services) Rules, 2023. Thus, it appears that the Nagpur Municipal Corporation is relying on the Rules by which the petitioners’ services are governed. 12. Put altogether, there are three main grounds why the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit. The first is that his services are not covered by the proviso to Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. The second is that he possesses the qualification of BAMS and not MBBS, and the third is that he is employed with Nagpur Municipal Corporation, which has different set of Rules. 13. That being so, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya