P. THANGARAJ Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENT & FOREST DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.C/3548/97, dated 30.9.1997 and in Na.Ka.No.C/3548/97 dated 13.3.1998 and that of the second respondent in Na.Ka.Pa.1/21128/97, dated 6.1.1998, quash the said orders and issue consequential directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 31.3.1999 and to reside in the quarters provided by the Corporation till then.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that on being sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Nagercoil, he was appointed as Night Watcher on 21.1.1985 on temporary basis in the scale of pay of Rs.200 -5 -300 in the Arasu Rubber Corporation Limited, Keeriparai Division, Keeriparai by its Divisional Manager in his S.O.No.2/85 (C.No.9069/84), dated 7.1.1985 and his services were regularised from the date of his joining; that large number of Government employees in the Forest Department were deputed to the services of the Corporation and all the employees including the deputationists are being paid pay and allowances in the same scales of pay and rates as admissible to Government employees; that as per proviso to F.R.56(a), a member of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service is entitled to be in service till he attains the age of 60 years while for all other employees it is 58 years; that since he was in the basic service, he was under the bona fide impression that he is entitled to be service till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. till 31.3.1999 and this view was strengthened by the fact that when he completed the age of 58 years on 31.3.1997, the third respondent, under whom he was working, did not pass any order permitting him to retire on 31.3.1997.

(3.) THE third respondent would file a counter besides generally denying the allegations of the petition, this respondent would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the Corporation on 21.1.1985 and his date of birth was 25.3.1939; that as per Service Rule 28 of the Corporation, an employee shall retire from service on his completion of 58 years, but in the case in hand, because the clerical staff of the Corporation did not point out the date of retirement of the petitioner, he was allowed to work for about six months more by mistake and disciplinary action was also taken against such clerical staff; that since the petitioner did not vacate the quarters after retirement, he was asked to vacate the quarters within seven days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which he was informed that rent would be collected at the market rate; that the petitioner is strictly bound by the rules and regulations of the Corporation; that the petitioner is well aware that he should retire at the age of 58 years, as per the Corporation rules though for the Tamil Nadu Basic Servant, the age of retirement is 60 years and the petitioner worked in the Corporation by accepting the rules and regulations of the Corporation and therefore he cannot now be permitted to claim certain benefits by comparing himself with the Government servant and his contention that the Fundamental Rule 56 alone will apply to the case in hand is untenable since as on the date of his retirement, the Service Rules are in force; that the petitioner failed in his duty in bringing to the notice of the officials his retirement age; that the pay and allowances are being given to the employees after getting approval of the Board of Directors of Arasu Rubber corporation and the Tamil Nadu Basic Servants Rules will not apply to the Corporation; that the petitioner has been paid for the duty performed by him and so far no amount has been recovered from the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner; that there is no rule to allow the petitioner to continue his service up to the age of 60 years; that the petitioner already retired from his service and he was relieved on 30.9.1997 AN itself and the impugned letter is only a show -cause notice, for which he had already given a reply dated 17.10.1997 and the same was considered and rejected in the light of Rule 28. On such grounds, the third respondent would pray to dismiss the above writ petition.