A S ABDULSALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. Before 1976, the writ petitioner was working as Karnam. On the abolition of the post of Karnam and creation of the post of Village Administrative Officer in its place, he was striped off the said job. Based on the representations of Ex-Village Officers, who were in service on 14.11.1980 and were below the age of 60 years were directed to be appointed as Panchayat Assistants in the Village Panchayats by G.O.Ms. No. 2333 Revenue dated 19.11.1990. By G.O.Ms. No. 962 Rural Development (E7) Department dated 28.11.1990, the petitioner was absorbed as Panchayat Assistant with effect from 23.1.1991 on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/- per month. As per the said Government Order, namely G.O.Ms. No. 962 Rural Development (E7) Department, the age of retirement of Panchayat Assistants was fixed at 60 years. Subsequently, the government passed an order in G.O.Ms. No. 175 Rural Development Department dated 05.12.2006 re-designating the erstwhile Panchayat Assistants as Panchayat Assistant Grade 1 and part time Pachayat Attenders as Panchayat Assistant Grade 2 with the time scales of pay of Rs. 1300-20-1500-25-2000 and Rs. 625-10-725-25-925 respectively. The said Government Order was given retrospective effect from 01.09.2006.

(2.) While doing so, the government fixed the retirement age for Panchayat Assistants both Grade 1 and 2 at 58 years. The petitioner, who was born on 05.06.1948 had completed the age of 58 years before the date from which G.O.Ms. No. 175 Rural Administration Department was given effect to. The petitioner and similarly situated persons, who had completed the age of 58 years on 01.09.1998, were relieved from service on 31.12.2006 holding them to have attained the age of superannuation. Contending that while passing the Government Order fixing time scale of pay to the Panchayat Assistants Grade and reducing the age of retirement from 60 years to 58 years, the anomaly of those who had completed the age of 58 and had not completed the age of 60 as on the effective date, was not properly addressed and because of such anomaly the petitioner's service condition was adversely affected, since time scale of pay was not fixed for him and he was not paid time scale of pay till he was relieved from service on 31.12.2006 and at the same time he had to lose the benefit of continuing in the employment till the completion of age of 60 years. Hence the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned Government Order (Ms.) No. 175, Rural Development and Rural Administration Department dated 5.12.2006 so far as it relates to the annexure bearing serial No.(VII) under the caption "Administrative controls" and the consequential order dated 31.12.2006 in Na.Ka. No. 3449/2006/E2 passed by the fourth respondent retiring the petitioner from service and quash the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while reducing the age of superannuation on the prescription of time scale of pay for the post of Panchayat Assistants, the Government did not take into account the interest of those who would have crossed the age of 58 years and would not have completed the age of 60 years as on the date from which G.O.Ms. No. 175 Rural Development and Administration Department dated 05.12.2006 was brought into force and that thus the petitioner was deprived of the benefit of the above said government order dated 05.12.2006, as no time scale of pay was fixed for him and at the same time he was denied the right of continuing in service till he attained the age of 60 years as per the earlier government order.