Allowed

Vetrivel v. the Principal District Judge

Madras HC26 Aug 2021WP(MD)/5415/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a writ petition filed by a Head Clerk seeking voluntary retirement. The Court held that the respondent's plea of staff shortage could not override the qualifying criteria under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c)(3), setting aside the rejection order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.09.2020 set aside; Writ Petition allowed with direction to accept request for voluntary retirement.

Vetrivel Vs the Principal District Judge — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.5415 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.08.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR W.P(MD)No.5415 of 2021

Vetrivel

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul District Court, Dindigul.

¶8

2.The Sessions Judge, Fast Tract (Mahila) Court, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order made by the first respondent in Roc.No.4448/2020/A1 dated 17.09.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to accept and permit the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement from service within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohaboob Athiff For Respondents : Mr.N.Tamil Mani

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J. )

¶13

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 17.09.2020 and to quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents to accept and permit the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement from service within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶14

2.The petitioner is presently serving as Head Clerk in the Additional Mahila Court, Dindigul. He joined the service on 16.10.1996. The petitioner submitted an application on 21.03.2019 seeking to retire voluntarily, however, the first respondent by order dated 29.08.2019, passed an order rejecting the request claiming that there is shortage of staffs and if the request is accepted, it would lead to further shortage. To qualify for availing voluntary retirement as per Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c)(3), a Government servant is expected to attain the age of fifty years or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ should have completed twenty years of qualifying service. A three

¶15

1/2

¶16

W.P(MD)No.5415 of 2021

¶17

months notice for voluntary retirement should be given to the employer.

¶18

3.In the case on hand, the petitioner had already crossed the age of 59 years and will attain superannuation within nine months time. The petitioner has also putting nearly 25 years of service. Therefore, the petitioner has fulfilled both the conditions for availing voluntarily retirement under Fundamental Rule 56(1)(c)(3).

¶19

4.When the petitioner is qualified to avail voluntary retirement, the reasoning given by the first respondent for rejecting the application on the ground of existing vacancy cannot be accepted. The Fundamental Rule does not prohibit a staff from availing voluntary retirement when the said person had fulfilled the conditions imposed under Fundamental Rule 56(i)(c)(3). The existence of the vacancy cannot be put against a staff member for accepting the voluntarily retirement application.

¶20

5.In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 17.09.2020 is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

Note :

¶25

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶26

¶27

1.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul District Court,Dindigul.

¶28

2.The Sessions Judge, Fast Tract (Mahila) Court,Dindigul.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.MAHABOOB ATHIFF, Advocate (SR-27609[F] dated 31/08/2021)

¶30

W.P(MD)No.5415 of 2021 26.08.2021

¶31

RK (06.09.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

2/2

Vetrivel v. the Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vetrivel v. the Principal District Judge

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

P.Ganesan Vs the Commandant

Murugesan.R Vs the District Collector

Selvaraj Vs the Assistant Engineer

A.Raguvaran, Vs the Chairman

Jayinulbudeen Vs the Assistant Engineer

Jeyaraman N Vs the District Collector