Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4830 (MAD)

R. Marimuthu v. The Collector Trichy District

2011-12-15

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The Tahsildar, Trichy appointed the petitioner as Village Assistant in a regular vacancy, by an order dated 02.05.1988. He was already serving as Village Assistant on temporary basis for six years. In the appointment order dated 02.05.1988 itself, it was stated that the petitioner was aged 39 years. While so, the second respondent passed an order dated 30.06.2001 retiring the petitioner from service on the ground that he reached the age of superannuation. 3. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.4548 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 30.06.2001 of the second respondent contending that it was a premature retirement. 4. When the Original Application came up for admission before the Tribunal on 18.07.2001, the Tribunal directed the learned Government Advocate to produce the records and directed the matter to be posted for hearing on 01.08.2001. However, the records were not produced. In these circumstances, the Tribunal admitted the matter and adjourned by four weeks for counter affidavit and disposal. Now, the matter has taken more than a decade for its disposal. 5. In the meantime, the Tribunal got abolished and the Original Application in O.A.No.4548 of 2001 got transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.2293 of 2007. 6. The respondents neither filed counter affidavit nor chosen to produce the records. 7. Heard the submissions made on either side. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 30.06.2001 was passed, without any prior notice and the petitioner was never put on notice that he would be retired from service on 30.06.2001. It is not known as to how the second respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the very appointment order dated 02.05.1988, since in the appointment order itself, it was stated that the petitioner was aged 39 years. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the contents of the appointment order dated 02.05.1988, which reads as follows: 10. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the very appointment order dated 02.05.1988, since in the appointment order itself, it was stated that the petitioner was aged 39 years. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the contents of the appointment order dated 02.05.1988, which reads as follows: 10. It is true that before passing the order dated 30.06.2001, the second respondent VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED sent a letter dated 07.06.2001 to the petitioner directing him to produce some evidence in support of his date of birth, as there was no proper entry in the service register regarding his date of birth. If the petitioner failed to produce any record in support of his date of birth as directed by the second respondent in the letter dated 07.06.2001, the second respondent ought to have sent him for medical examination to ascertain his age. Instead of doing the same, the second respondent simply issued the order dated 30.06.2001 retiring the petitioner from service presuming that he reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2001, for which there is no basis. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order is contrary to and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the order dated 30.06.2001 of the second respondent prematurely retiring the petitioner from service. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to issue suitable direction to the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board to ascertain his date of birth, so as to ascertain his date of retirement. The respondents are further directed to pay wages from 01.07.2001 till the petitioner reached 60 years of age. The respondents are directed to complete the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. No costs.