S.JAYANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioners, they are working as teachers in School Education/Elementary Education Department in the State of Tamil Nadu. The first and second petitioners attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. The third petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2019. Thus, all the petitioners attained the age of superannuation during the middle of the academic year and thereafter on re-employment, they have been permitted to work till the end of the academic year, ie., 31.05.2020.

(2.) While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed the order in G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020 as per which the age of superannuation of Government servants has been increased from 58 years to 59 years and the same has been directed not to apply for the teachers who are actually in service as on the date of the Government Order on re-employment. Contending that the petitioners herein are also entitled to the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020, the present writ petition has been filed praying to set aside the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 and the subsequent Government Letter issued by the first respondent in Letter No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 insofar as it disallows the teachers in service on re-employment as on 07.05.2020 and consequently to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue in service till reaching the age of 59 years, with all consequential and attendant benefits.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the Government Order, revision of age of retirement is not applied to Government teachers in service as on the date of the Government Order on re-employment till the end of the academic year, on the premise that they reached the age of retirement prior to the date of Government Order. Any such discrimination against the teachers who are actually in service on re-employment as on the date of the Government Order by referring to the cutoff date for retirement is ex- facie arbitrary and illegal and opposed to the purpose/object for which the age of retirement has been directed to be revised as per the Government Order. He further submitted that the continuation of cutoff date to exclude the teachers in service as on the date of the Government order on re-employment is blatantly capricious and against the ratio laid down by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S.Nagara case (1983 (1) SCC 305), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the benefits of liberalised and the extended tenure even in accordance with the liberalised pension scheme have to be given equally to all retirees irrespective of their date of retirement and the benefits cannot be confined only to the persons who retired on or after the specified date by considering the purpose for grant of benefits of liberalisation in pension. It is his further submission that the determination of cutoff date needs to be passed on the uniform criteria which is intelligible, fair and reasonable opportunity as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 16 SCC 652, whereas, the impugned order has been passed without carving out the intelligible differentia between the Government servants in regular service and the teachers in service on re-employment as on the date of the Government order. Finally stating that the impugned Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 07.05.2020 issued by the Government in not extending the benefit of the revision of age of retirement in respect of the teachers in service as on the date of the Government order on re-employment basis is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for allowing the prayer as sought for in this writ petition.