Disposed

T.M.Muralidharan v. the Dy. Director of Panchayath

Kerala HC14 Mar 2007WP(C)/3112/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioner claimed eligibility to continue service until age 65 contrary to mandatory retirement at 55, citing a specific Government Order. The court directed the Additional 3rd Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd Respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext. P5) in light of relevant Government Orders and service particulars and pass orders within two months.

T.M.Muralidharan Vs the Dy. Director of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2007 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 3112 of 2007(U) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

T.M.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNA MENON, FULL TIME SWEEPER, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT "THATHTHA" NIVAS, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD.

¶13

THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PALAKKAD.

¶14

ADDL. R3: STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT. OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT NO:3 VIDE ORDER ON I.A 2156/2007 DT. 12.3.2007)

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.K. DENESAN, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3112 OF 2007 U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

Dated this the 14^th March, 2007

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner while working as Full-time Sweeper

¶22

in Kollengode Grama Panchayat has retired from service on 31-1-2007. He attained the age of 55 years in the month of January, 2007. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is eligible to continue in service until she attains the age of 65 years in the light of G.O.(Rt) No. 930/03/Local Admn. dated 18-3-2003. The Panchayat authorities have directed him to retire from service on attaining the age of 55 years. Ext. P5 representation filed by the petitioner is pending with the additional 3^rd respondent.

¶23

Counsel submits that urgent orders are

¶24

necessary on Ext. P5.

¶25

Heard Govt. Pleader for respondents 1 and 3.

¶26

In the nature of the order I propose to pass, notice need not be issued to respondent No. 2 at this stage.

¶27

The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider Ext. P5 in the light of the relevant Govt. Orders and the service particulars to be obtained from respondents 1

¶28

WPC No.3112 /2007 -2-

¶29

and 2 and pass orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶30

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the additional 3^rd respondent for information and

¶31

compliance.

¶32

K.K. DENESAN JUDGE

¶33

jan/

T.M.Muralidharan v. the Dy. Director of Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Muralidharan v. the Dy. Director of Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. Vs Mary V.V.

K.C.Santha Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

N.v.Balakrishnan Vs K.S.E.B.

K.P.Rajagopala Pillai Vs State of Kerala

A. Sudhir Vs State of Kerala

S. Madhava Sarma Vs the Secretary, K.S.E.B.