The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the State Government's policy decision to increase the retirement age of employees from 59 to 60. The court termed the petition misconceived and issued a one-year ban on further PILs.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs. 5,000 and banned from filing PILs for two years.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
WP No.10562 of 2021
R.Balamuralidharan .. Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India,
through Ministry of Personal and
Administrative Reform(S),
rep. by its Secretary,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Controller & Auditor General of India,
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi – 110 124.
3.The Chief Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.4.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary of its
Personal and Administrative Reform(s),
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary of
Labour and Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
rep. by the Chairman,
TNPSC Road Park Town,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai
Tamil Nadu – 600 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the
records in G.O.Ms.29 Personnel and Administrative Reform(s)
Department, dated 25.02.2021 on the file of the 4th respondent
and quash the same as unconstitutional, ultra-vires the
Constitution of India, illegal, incompetent, without
jurisdiction, excessive legislation, colourable legislation.
For the Petitioner:Mr.M.Muruganantham
For the Respondents
: Mr.G.Ilangovan CGSC for respondent No.1: Ms.R.Anitha Counsel for the State for respondent Nos.3 to 5: Mr.Karthik Rajan for respondent No.6ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The petition is utterly misconceived and filed only for
publicity purposes. The challenge here is to a notification
dated February 25, 2021 by which a policy decision has been
taken by the elected government of the State to increase the
retirement age of State government employees from 59 to 60.
2. The petitioner purports to contend that when there is
large-scale unemployment and the like, the increase in the
retirement age is detrimental to the interest of those seeking
to obtain government jobs in the State. However, the petition
is bare bodied and bereft of any details or material, leave
alone any figures which would demonstrate that the decision is
obviously flawed.
3. Indeed, the court is slow to interfere in matters of
policy since it is the prerogative of the government. Further,
a similar challenge carried by way of WP (MD) No.5302 of 2021
(R.Gopinath v. State of Tamil Nadu) has been dismissed by a co-
ordinate Bench by a terse order on July 16, 2021. Paragraph 3
of the order indicates that the prayer sought cannot be granted
as it is a policy decision of the government.
4. For the present writ petitioner seeking to make a
spectacle out of this matter, the petitioner will pay costs
assessed at Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority within a fortnight from date. In addition, the
petitioner will not be entitled to bring any public interest
litigation in this court for a period of two years without
obtaining the previous leave of the relevant Bench in such
regard.
5. WP No.10562 of 2021 is dismissed. WMP Nos.11149 and
11150 of 2021 are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Personal and Administrative Reform(S),
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Controller & Auditor General of India,
Pocket-9, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi – 110 124.
3.The Chief Secretary of Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Personal and Administrative Reform(s),
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Labour and Employment Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road Park Town,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai
Tamil Nadu – 600 003.
7. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
V.O.C. Nagar, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 003.
+1CC to M/s.M.Muruganantham, Advocate, SR.No. 50746
+1CC to M/s.G.Ilangovan, Advocate, SR.No. 50603
+1CC to The Government Pleader, SR.No. 50824
W.P.No.10562 of 2021
CP(CO)
B.VC (04/10/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the government policy decision to increase the retirement age of state employees from 59 to 60.
Whether the petition challenging the notification increasing the retirement age is devoid of material facts to demonstrate obvious flaw.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R. Gopinath v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶22
WP (MD) No.5302 of 2021 (R.Gopinath v. State of Tamil Nadu)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Balamuralidharan
The Union of India
The Controller & Auditor General of India
The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Sanjib Banerjee
P.D. Audikeshavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court