1 904 wp 510.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 510 OF 2026 Rajendra Maruti Patil .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri Rahul B. Khot, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Sanjay D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Archana Gaikwad, Advocate a/w Shri Anilkumar Matle, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 08TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides finally with their consent. 2. The petition is directed against judgment and order dated 08.07.2025 passed in Appeal No. 15 of 2024 quashing order of termination dated 13.04.2022 and reinstating the petitioner within 30 days. 3. Learned counsels appearing for the litigating sides advance rival submissions. 4. Undisputedly the petitioner stood superannuated on 31.08.2022. He was insisting for granting him voluntary 2026:BHC-KOL:8677 2 904 wp 510.26 retirement, which he had applied on 01.08.2019. It was not accepted by the management. Besides that the respondent – management conducted inquiry and terminated him vide order dated 13.04.2022. The petitioner had preferred Appeal No. 15 of 2024 against order of termination. 4. It transpires that before the Tribunal also the petitioner insisted for accepting his voluntary retirement, which is not acceded to. It is case of the management that his claim for voluntary retirement has been consistently refused by various forums. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rahul Khot on instructions of his client, who is present today in the Court has made a statement that petitioner is not insisting for voluntary retirement from the school and he would be satisfied if retiral benefits considering date of superannuation are conferred upon him. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – management or the learned A. G. P. did not have serious objection for considering the petitioner as superannuated on 31.08.2022 and granting him retiral benefits as is permissible in law. 7. It transpires from record that the petitioner is permanent employee. When he suffered order of termination, he was acting as an Assistant Teacher. He stood superannuated on 31.08.2022. 3 904 wp 510.26 He is entitled to retiral benefits, is apparent on record. 8. My attention is adverted by Mr. Rayrikar, learned A. G. P. to the correspondence made by the Education Officer on 02.03.2021 to the management for forwarding the papers of the petitioner for awarding retiral benefits. Further correspondence on the same line has also been made, but there is no reply. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - management Ms. Archana Gaikwad has fairly stated that the management is ready to forward the papers of the petitioner provided that the petitioner accepts superannuation. 10. Interestingly the petitioner’s attaining age of superannuation has not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Instead of granting reinstatement, the Tribunal should have treated the petitioner to have attained age of superannuation on 31.08.2022. The impugned order is unsustainable as it is unexecutable. I, therefore, pass following order. O R D E R A. The writ petition is allowed partly, quashing impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal No. 15 of 2024. B. It is hereby declared that the petitioner has attained 4 904 wp 510.26 superannuation on 31.08.2022 and he is entitled to get retiral/pensionary benefits as is permissible in law. C. The respondents – management shall forward the papers to the respondent No. 3 – Education Officer for awarding the retiral benefits. The respondent No. 3 shall deal with the pension papers as is permissible in law. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/Sept. 26