The Madurai Bench dismissed the writ appeal challenging an order extending retirement age from 58 to 59 years. The court held that the benefit applied only to existing regular employees, excluding contractual re-employed teachers who had already attained superannuation age, finding no discrimination.
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.
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023 and
C.M.P.(MD) No.9272 of 2023
M.Alagappan
... Appellant
-vs-
Page 1 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 08.07.2020, passed in W.P.(MD) No.7338 of 2020, on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Bharathy Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment of the Court was made by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.]
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 08.07.2020, dismissing the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.7338 of 2020 filed by the appellant herein.
Page 2 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
2. In the said writ petition, the appellant challenged the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020, insofar as it restricts the benefit of extension of superannuation date to those, who are in service on the date of the said Government Order.
3. The case of the appellant is that when the Government had decided to extend the retirement age from 58 to 59 years in terms of the said G.O.(Ms) No.51, dated 07.05.2020, it should have been made applicable to all the employees and just because, the appellant was not in service as on 07.05.2020, he should not have been left out. Therefore, it is the case of the appellant that the cut off date prescribed under the said Government Order is artificial in nature.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the case of the appellant and the fact that the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2020 even prior to the date of the said Government Order and it is only on reemployment, he was continuing in service till 31.05.2020 i.e. till the end of the academic year and the said reemployment was contractual in nature
Page 3 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
and therefore, there is a difference between the service of the regular employee, who is yet to retire and the service of the contractual employee, who was in service. Therefore, when the appellant belonged to a different class, the learned Single Judge has held that G.O.(Ms) No.51, dated 07.05.2020, cannot be said to be discriminatory and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed before this Court.
5. Though this writ appeal has been filed raising very many grounds, when this Court posed a query as to the decisions, which are rendered in several connected matters affirming the same view of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant has no answer. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the cut off date cannot be held to be artificial. The Government Order extended the age of superannuation only to those, who are in service. Admittedly, the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 29.02.2020 and he was only on reemployment till 31.05.2020 viz ., till the end of academic year. In that view of the matter, no exception whatsoever can be taken in respect of the decision of the employer to extend the age of superannuation in respect of its existing employees and the appellant does not have any right to insist for increasing the age of superannuation. In the
Page 4 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
absence of any right and when the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.51, dated 07.05.2020, is not applicable to the case of the appellant, this writ appeal is bound to fail.
6. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [D.B.C., J.]
01.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
krk
To: 1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
_____________ Page 5 of 7_
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
Page 6 of 7
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023
S.S.SUNDAR, J. and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1237 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD) No.9272 of 2023
01.08.2023
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Government Order extending retirement age is discriminatory against contractual re-employed teachers who had already attained superannuation age prior to the order.
Whether a claim for extension of service benefits lapses when the employee did not hold regular service at the time of the order.
Whether the cut-off date prescribed in the Government Order constituted an artificial classification.
M. Alagappan
The State of Tamil Nadu
S.S. SUNDAR
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
