Libertatem Magazine

Madras High Court: Extension of Benefits of Retirement After the Age of Superannuation Increased

Contents of this Page

The petition was filed under Article 226 in Madras High Court in the case of V. Vasantha v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. The filing of the petition is to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and call for records of the impugned order passed on 07.05.2020 and quash the same. Justice Mr.P.D Audikesavalu heard and disposed of the matter of the petition.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020 while working as Junior Training Officer. In an order dating 07.05.2020, the State of Tamil Nadu by a GOM increased the age of retirement from 58 to 59 years. It was on a condition that the employee was in regular service on 07.05.2020. But the Petitioner owing to his superannuation dated 31.07.2020 took early retirement on 30.04.2020. Hence, the Petitioner seeks the benefit of the GOM.

Arguments of the Parties

The Petitioner contended that since they retired due to the previous condition for superannuation, they deserve the GMO benefits.

The Respondents contended:

  1. The Petitioner retired on 30.04.2020.
  2. He was not a regular employee under Government on the date of issuance of GMOs.

The Government Order said it applies only to ordinary Government servants. The GMO is considered to come in as prospectively and not retrospectively. Allowing this would enable other servants to seek the benefit of the GMO. Even those who retired a few months before the issuance of GMOs and hence, the GMO should not be applicable to him.

Observation of Court

The Court observed that retirement on attaining the age of superannuation means there is no jural relationship between employee-employer. Hence, the employee cannot seek the benefit of the GMO. The Court placed reliance on S. Germani Isabella v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu.

The Court also observed that there is no dispute about regular service as she attained superannuation and retired on 30.04.2020. Thus, she is not under regular service and would not be entitled to the benefits.

Decision of Court

The Court disposed of the petition with connected miscellaneous petitions. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author