M KATHAPERUMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER; DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) The petitioner further submits that the respondents continued to pay him salary only on daily wage basis which he used to draw in consolidated form at the end of every month. His services were continuously required for the respondent and his length of service would prove it and in view of the continuous requirement, he sincerely worked under the respondents not for one or two years, but for 40 years with a huge amount of legitimate expectation that his services would be suitably rewarded. Since the respondents continuously engaged him even without any break, he was never made to think of any other job, though he is fit enough to continue in service. To his shock and surprise, the first respondent passed an order dated 28.02.2001 retiring him from service with effect from 28.02.2001, on attaining the age of super-annuation. However, the said order was silent about his terminal benefits. Therefore, he made several representations to the respondents herein to pay his retirement benefits.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that there is no provision for retirement of a daily wage worker and the issuance of the retirement order at the age of 60 years would show that the first respondent treated him as a last grade servant in which case the retirement age is 60 years and they are eligible for retirement benefits. Therefore, he is entitled for his terminal benefits. Further, the issuance of the retirement order would show that he was treated as a regularized employee. However, the various representations sent to the respondents were finally replied in the form of an impugned order passed by the first respondent in O.Mu.No.991/2002/A5, dated 19.03.2002, which states that there is no provision to pay the pension for a worker who worked on daily wage basis and even this impugned order was not passed by the first respondent on his own on the representation made by him, but it was only after he submitted a Memorandum on the grievance day to the second respondent on 12.01.2002 and 18.03.2002, who in turn directed the first respondent to pay his retirement benefits as per the rules. If the first respondent treats him as a daily wage worker, then he is duty bound to state under which provision of rules, he was retired from service. There is no retirement age for a daily wage worker and he ought to have been engaged continuously in service unless declared medically unfit to hold the post. In other words, unless he is medically invalidated from service he should continue to work as a daily wage worker since he has been service from 1964. His length of service would prove that there is a permanent demand for it and there is no dispute about his physical fitness or his insufficiency of service. Hence, he made further representation to the first respondent on 04.05.2002 and 20.06.2002, after his request for pension and other benefits were rejected. All his representations were also forwarded to the second respondent for proper action. The impugned order had been passed without any legal basis and has affected his fundamental rights. Hence, the above writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent.