Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2021 (MAD)

A. R. Balakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Chennai

2022-07-12

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the order dated 31.07.2015 of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to pass orders re-employing the petitioner as P.G. Assistant Teacher till end of the academic year 2015-2016 i.e., till 31.05.2016 as per the G.O.Ms.No.1643 Education (U2) Department.) 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service beyond his age of retirement till the end of the academic year as per the Government Orders in force. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner was unreasonably prevented from continuing his services beyond the date of retirement till the end of the academic year. 3. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner had not served beyond his date of superannuation and he was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 4. Extension of service is a concession granted by the Government for the benefit of the students and such a concession can never be claimed as a matter of right. Thus, the rejection, in this regard, would not constitute a right to claim salary or other remuneration. 5. As per the service conditions, the petitioner was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation and all the terminal and pensionary benefits due to him were settled. The petitioner has not served beyond his date of superannuation and therefore, he is not eligible for any other additional remuneration. 6. That apart, the petitioner is now 65 years old and he is receiving the pension in accordance with the rules. 7. This being the factum, the case of the writ petitioner deserves no further consideration and accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.