The prayer in the writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in his proceeding in Ref.No Mathi 1/13945/09 dt.06.08.10 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and permit him to employ up to the age of 60 years in view of the government orders passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.202, dated 16.10.2008 & G.O.Ms.No.197 Dated14.10.2009 within the specified time fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioner had been initially engaged as one of the Town Planning Gang coolie from the year 1978 at the 2nd respondent Corporation. Subsequently, his service was regularised from 07.04.1992 and was brought into time scale of pay. The petitioner has reached superannuation on 30.01.2009 on completion of 58 years. In the meanwhile, the Government issued two Government Orders, the first one dated 16.10.2008 in G.O.No.202 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, whereby the retirement age of the last grade servants working in the Municipalities in the State had been enhanced from 58 to 60, which is on par with basic Government servant working in the State Government Departments. Since, the said G.O.No.202 omitted to include the last grade servant working in Corporation like the 2nd respondent Corporation, the Director of Municipalities had requested the Government to extend the benefit conferred under G.O.202 to the basic servant working in Corporations also. Accepting the said request of the Director of Municipalities, the Government has come forward to issue another Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.197 Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 14.10.2009. The import of the said G.O., reads thus:
?2.midj;J khefuhl;rpfspYk; (nrd;id khefuhl;rp ePq;fyhf) jpdf;$yp mbg;gilapy; gzpGhpe;J gpd;dh; murhy; Kiwahf;fk; nra;ag;gl;l gzpahsh;fSf;F> Xa;T ngWk; taJ Fwpj;J murhiz vz;.202> efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FbePh; toq;fy; Jiw> ehs; 16.10.2008-y; khefuhl;rp gzpahsh;fs; Fwpj;J VJk; Fwpg;gplhky; efuhl;rpapy; gzpGhpAk; gzpahsh;fSf;F kl;LNk Xa;T ngWk; taJ 60vd Fwpg;gpl;likahy;> Nkw;gb Xa;T ngWk; taJ 60 Mf khefuhl;rp gzpahsh;fSf;Fk; (jpdf;$yp gzpapypUe;J Kiwahf;fk; nra;agl;lth;fs;) nghUe;Jk; tifapy; Nkw;gb murhizia tphpT gLj;JkhW efuhl;rp eph;thf ,af;Feh; muif NfhhpAs;shh;.
3.Nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l #o;epiyapy; murhiz epiy vz;.202 efuhl;rp eph;thfk; kw;Wk; FbePh; toq;fy; (e.g.1) Jiw> ehs;. 16.10.2008. efuhl;rpfspy; jpdf;$yp gzpahsh;fshf ,Ue;J gpd;dh; filepiy Copah;fshf epue;jukha gzp epakdk; nra;ag;gl;lth;fspd; Xa;T ngWk; taJ 60Mf eph;zapj;J Miz ntspapl;lij midj;J khefuhl;rpfspYk; (nrd;id khefuhl;rp ePq;fyhf) jpdf;$yp gzpapypUe;J Kiwahf;fk; nra;ag;gl;l filepiy Copah;fSf;Fk; nghUe;Jk; tifapy; Nkw;gb murhizia tphpTgLj;jp Xa;T ngWk; taJ 60 Mf eph;zapj;J Miz ntspaplf;NfhUk; efuhl;rp eph;thf ,af;Fehpd; nraw;Fwpg;gpid muR ftdkhf Muha;e;J mjid Vw;W mt;thNw muR MizapLfpwJ.?
3. Based on the said Government orders, since the petitioner is also one of the basic grade servant worked in the 2nd respondent Corporation, he had requested the 2nd respondent to extend his services upto the age of 60, ie, upto the year 2011, as only by that time, he would attain the superannuation by completing 60 years. That request of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 06.08.10. The 2nd respondent in the said impugned order has stated that in G.O.197, there is no prospective date has been given and since the G.O. was issued only on 14.10.2009, before which, the petitioner had attained the superannuation by completing 58 years on 31.01.2009, the request of the petitioner to extend his service cannot be considered. Accordingly, the said request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent in the order impugned. Therefore, challenging the same, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.
4. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned respective counsel.
5. The only issue to be resolved in this case is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to seek the benefit of extension of service for two more years on completion of his superannuating age 60, in view of G.O.No.202 dated 16.10.2008 and G.O.197 dated 14.10.2009 issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
6. The basic servant working in the State Government of Tamil Nadu are governed by Special Rules for basic servants and according to the said Rule, the retirement age of the basic servant shall be 60 years. In order to bring the basic servants working in local bodies also, the Government being the welfare State has come forward to issue the said G.O.No.202 dated 16.10.2008, whereby the upper age limit for consideration for last grade servant working in local bodies ie., Municipalities had been enhanced from 58 to 60. While issuing the said G.O. No.202, the Corporations like, the 2nd respondent Corporations have been omitted. After having noticed the said omission, the Director of Municipal Administration had written to the Government requesting to extend the said benefit conferred through the said G.O.No.202 to the basic servants working in the Corporations also. Fully accepting the said suggestion made by the Director of Municipal Administration, the Government has issued the subsequent G.O. ie., G.O.No.197 dated 14.10.2009 and the import of the said G.O., has already been reproduced herein above.
7. On reading of the said import of the G.O.No.197, it can be easily found that the benefit of extending the retirement age from 58 to 60 for basic grade servant working in Corporation has been extended, in other words, the benefit conferred to the basic grade servant working in local bodies such as Municipalities etc., in G.O.No.202 has been extended to basic grade servant working in Corporation also, by G.O.No.197. The issuance of G.O.No.197 was necessitated only because of the omission made in G.O.No.202, where the basic grade servant working in Corporations have been omitted to be mentioned.
8. These factors have been specifically mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the G.O.No.197 and therefore, the benefit accrued on the petitioner to claim the extension of service for two more years, ie., upto 60 years, has been conferred to the people like the petitioner also, by G.O.No.202. Only in order to fill up the gap or to overcome the causes omises, the State Government has come out with the 2nd G.O., ie., G.O.No.197 dated 14.10.2009. Therefore, the reason adduced by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order to state that the 2nd G.O., ie., G.O.No.197 was dated 14.10.2009, before which, the petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2009 by completing 58 years and there is no retrospective date has been mentioned in the said G.O. No.197, therefore, the plea of the petitioner cannot be considered, in the opinion of this Court, is totally unjust and cannot be countenanced in view of the import of G.O.No.202 itself.
9. In view of the said factors and in view of the Government orders, whereby the policy decision of the Government is reflected, all the basic servants like the petitioner working in Corporations like, the 2nd respondent Corporation except Chennai Corporation, certainly, would be eligible to claim the benefit of extension of service up to the age of 60 years as a maximum period of service/superannuation. Therefore, in that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is quashed.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek reinstatement. However, since he has already attained superannuation, even by completing 60 years by 31.01.2011 itself, for the said period of two years ie., from 01.02.2009 to 31.01.2011, his service period shall be calculated as notional service period, for which, the petitioner shall be entitled to only 50% of the salary, as he has not contributed anything to the 2nd respondent Corporation. It is needless to mention that the other service benefits including pension shall be calculated accordingly, by taking into account that the petitioner superannuated only on completion of 60 years. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To
1.The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, Chennai ? 600 009
2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai-2.
3.The Chief Town Planning Officer (In Charge) Corporation of Madurai, Madurai-2 .