S.Ayyarkalai vs The Managing Director
2024 Latest Caselaw 15030 Mad

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15030 Mad
Judgement Date : 2 August, 2024

Madras High Court

S.Ayyarkalai vs The Managing Director on 2 August, 2024

                                                                     W.P.(MD).No.18464 of 2024

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              DATED : 02.08.2024

                                                    CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                           W.P.(MD).No.18464 of 2024
                                                     and
                                          W.M.P.(MD)No.15698 of 2024


                     S.Ayyarkalai                                            ...Petitioner
                                                           Vs


                     1.The Managing Director,
                       Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited,
                       CMDA Tower II, 4th Floor,
                       Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

                     2.The Senior Regional Manager,
                       TASMAC Limited,
                       Plot No.100, Anna Nagar,
                       Madurai – 625 020.

                     3.The District Manager,
                       IMFS Depot, TASMAC Limited,
                       Thondi Road, Palamalai Nagar,
                       Narikuruvar Colony,
                       Soorakulam Village,
                       Sivagangai District.                            ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
                     India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to
                     call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third

                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         W.P.(MD).No.18464 of 2024

                     respondent in Na.Ka.No.006/2022/A2 dated 25.05.2024 and quash the
                     same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the
                     petitioner in service till the petitioner attain the age of 60 years with
                     continuity of service and with all attended monetary benefits


                                             For Petitioner    : Mr.T.Murugan

                                             For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam
                                                               Standing Counsel

                                                         ORDER

Heard Mr.T.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Salesman in the

TASMAC, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order dated

25.05.2024 allowing him to retire on attaining the age of 58 years on

09.06.2024.

4. Mr.T.Murugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is eligible to get the advantage of the

extension of age for retirement issued by the Government in

G.O.(Ms).No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department,

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

dated 07.05.2020 and G.O.(Ms).NO.29, Personnel and Administrative

Reforms (S) Department, dated 25.02.2021. By citing the above

Government Orders, it is claimed by the petitioner that the retirement age

to be extended till 60 years. Since the respondent is a State Marketing

Corporation, the above said Government Order is applicable to the

petitioner and hence, the petitioner ought not to have been relieved on

attaining the age of 58 itself.

5. However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that the petitioner is not a permanent employee

and hence, he cannot claim the benefit of the above said Government

Orders and the same is not applicable to the petitioner.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in

support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of this Court in

W.P.(MD).No.6025 of 2021 dated 18.03.2021:

“2. The petitioner herein, who was provisionally engaged as a Bar Attendar on temporary basis and on consolidated pay, placing reliance on G.O.(MS) No.51, Personal and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020,

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

seeks for service upto the age of 59 years. Since the petitioner has crossed the age of 58 years, the respondents claimed to relieve him at the age of 58 years. The said G.O.(MS) No.51, would not be applicable to the contract/temporary employee, which proposition has already been considered and held in favour of the respondent corporation in case of Viswanathan and others Vs The Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu and others passed in W.P(MD) No.7657 and 7681 of 2020, dated 28.08.2020. Since there are no material to show that the petitioner herein was a permanent employee of the Corporation, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 may not be applicable to the petitioner herein and as such, the action on the part of the respondents in refusing to continue the petitioner's service after the age of 58 years, cannot be found fault with.”

7. Since the petitioner is not a regular employee similar to others

who would get the benefit of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms).No.51,

Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020

and G.O.(Ms).NO.29, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)

Department, dated 25.02.2021, the petitioner is not entitled to make

such a claim.

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

8. In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.08.2024

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no Nsr

To: