Writ Petition Disposed Of By Madras High Court for Issuance Of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus

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 writ petition is filed under Article 226 in Madras High Court in the case of S. Rajendra v. State of Tamil Nadu. The filing of the writ was to call for the records relating to the first respondent’s impugned order. The order restricts two kinds of people:

  1. Those who are in regular service on the date;
  2. Those due to retire on superannuation from 31st July 2020. 

The petitioners ask for quashing of the same as it is illegal, it also extends the date of the petitioner’s retirement date. Justice Mrs. V. Bhavani Subbaroyan heard and disposed of the matter of writ petition. 

Facts of the Case

The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020. He was working as a Junior Training Officer. In an order dated 07.05.2020 State of Tamil Nadu by a GOM increased the age of retirement from 58 years to 59 years. This 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

Petitioner contended that since they retired owing to the previous condition for superannuation they deserve benefits of the GMO.

The respondents contended that the petitioner retired on 30.04.2020 and was not a regular employee under Government because of the issuance of GMOs. There is no employee-employer relationship between the parties as of 1.05.2020. The Government Order stated that it applies only to regular Government servants. The GMO is considered to come in as prospectively and not retrospectively. Once this situation is allowed, other servants will seek the benefit of the GMO, who retired a few months before the issuance of GMOs, and hence, the GMO should not be made applicable to him.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed that retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, 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. 

Decision of Court

The Court disposed of the petition.


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 -