Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1608 (MAD)

Y. Devaraj v. Central Warehousing Corporation

2014-06-20

T.RAJA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For better appreciation, facts involved in W.P.No.7053 of 2013 are stated below: The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Corporation as Chowkidar in the year 1966. After completion of 32 years of service, though he applied for voluntary retirement on 31.03.1998, he was permitted to retire on 30.06.1998 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). In the meantime, the Central Government has amended the Rule by enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years, by circular No.40/1998, dated 30.05.1998. Therefore, on coming to know the enhancement of age, the petitioner sent his representation dated 15.05.1998 requesting for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement, but, the same was rejected by the respondent Corporation on 29.05.1998. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation has also settled the terminal benefits taking into account his age of superannuation as 58 years. 3. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent ought to have settled the terminal benefits of the petitioners taking into account their age of superannuation as 60 years, for, the Rule has been amended by enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. However, the respondent Corporation has not considered the several representations sent by the petitioners for settling their terminal benefits by taking into account their age of superannuation as 60 years. Therefore, she pleaded, the approach adopted by the respondent Corporation in not settling the terminal benefits by taking into account the age of superannuation as 60 years is liable to be rejected. 4. But, this Court is unable to agree with the said submissions. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that the petitioners application dated 31.03.1998 for voluntary retirement was accepted and conveyed the same to the Regional Office, Chennai, vide proceedings dated 14.05.1998. Subsequently, they have also relieved the petitioners from duty on 30.06.1998. It is no doubt true that the Central Government had enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, which came into force from 28.05.1998 and this is, admittedly, after the petitioners have submitted their application for voluntary retirement on 31.03.1998. Subsequently, they have also relieved the petitioners from duty on 30.06.1998. It is no doubt true that the Central Government had enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years, which came into force from 28.05.1998 and this is, admittedly, after the petitioners have submitted their application for voluntary retirement on 31.03.1998. Therefore, the petitioners, having submitted their application for voluntary retirement and having availed the terminal benefits, cannot claim the benefit of subsequent increase in the age of superannuation as 60 years, which came into force subsequent to their application for voluntary retirement. It is in these circumstances clear that the petitioners' pensionary benefits were settled as per their application for voluntary retirement by taking into account their age of superannuation as 58 years, therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the terminal benefits by taking into account their age of superannuation as 60 years. 5. In fine, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly. No Costs.