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

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

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.


Libertatem.in 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -