Dismissed¶41

S.Arunachalam, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC18 Feb 2025WP(MD)/945/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retirement age extension 58 to 60; notional or deemed date of retirement; G.O.Ms.No.202 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 16.10.2008; retrospective application of government order refused; monetary benefit and financial consequences to State Exchequer; NMR regularized municipal Watchman pensionary benefits and salary arrears; Article 226 writ of mandamus; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; W.P(MD)No.945 of 2011; dismissed, no costs, connected miscellaneous petition closed; no precedents cited or engaged.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to deemed retirement on 31.05.2009 at age 60 or to the consequential monetary benefits sought on the basis of notional extension of service. ¶41

S.Arunachalam, Vs the Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.945 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18 .02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶7

W.P(MD)No.945 of 2011 and

¶8

M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶9

S.Arunachalam ... Petitioner

¶10

.Vs.

¶11

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water

¶12

Supply Department,

¶13

Secretariat, Anna Salai,

¶14

Chennai.

¶15

2.The Director of Municipal Administration,

¶16

Chepauk,

¶17

Chennai – 600 005.

¶18

3.The Director,

¶19

Local Fund Audit,

¶20

4^th Floor, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 105.

¶21

4.The Commissioner, Chenkottai Municipality,

¶22

1/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P(MD)No.945 of 2011

¶25

Chenkottai, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶26

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to direct the respondents herein to treat the Petitioner deemed to have retired from service on 31.5.2009 reckoning the case of retirement as 60 years and consequently to direct the respondents to disburse all the arrears of salary due from 31.5.2007 to 31.5.2009 and refix the pensionary and retirement benefits based on the notional date of retirement as 31.5.2009 and disburse all the arrears accrued to the Petitioner within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan For R1,R2 & R3 : Mr.D.Gandhiraj Special.Govt. Pleader For R4 : Mr.M.Saravanakumar

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN.,J)

¶30

Arunachalam/Writ Petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the Petitioner deemed to have retired from service on 31.05.2009 reckoning his retirement age as 60 years instead of 58 and to revise the pensionary and retirement benefits based on the notional date of retirement.

¶31

2/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P(MD)No.945 of 2011

¶34

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶35

3.The Petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in the year 1968 and his service was regularized in the year 1993. On attaining he age of 58, he was allowed to retire from service. However, taking notie of G.O.Ms.No.202, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 16.10.2008, he has sought for notional extension of service and for consequential pensionary benefits.

¶36

4.The Writ Petitioner attained the age of 58 years on 31.5.2007 and thereafter, he was allowed to retire from service. G.O.Ms.No.202, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department was issued on 16.10.2008 subsequent to his retirement. The above said Government Order which provides for extension of retirement age sought to be given retrospective effect by the writ Petitioner on the premise that there cannot be any discrimination between the NMR getting regularized subsequently and basic servants who entered service directly. It is also contended that laches in seeking remedy which is conferred under the statute, cannot be a ground to deny the

¶37

3/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P(MD)No.945 of 2011

¶40

benefit.

¶41

5.This Court in similar case, had declined to grant any relief to the Petitioners, who approached the Court seeking retrospective efect to get monetary benefit. Hence the Writ Petition stands dismissed, holding that G.O.Ms.No.202, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dted 16.10.2008 cannot be given retrospective effect conferring monetary benefit which will have a financial consequences to the State Exchequer. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.]

¶43

18.02.2025

¶44

NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsn

¶45

¶46

1.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Anna Salai, Chennai.

¶47

4/6

¶48