DR. C.S. SRINIVASAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, MADRAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was a Supervisory Unit Officer, National Malaria Eradication Programme, Erode at Coimbatore. He completed 55 years on 30th June, 1969. The Government had passed certain orders in G.O. Ms. No. 118, Health, dated 25th January, 1966. In that Government Order, it was stated that the Government directed that the age of superannuation of all categories of Medical Officers of the Madras Public Health Services be railed from 55 years to 58 years. Paragraph 2 of this order stated: -

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that if the power had been exercised under G.O. Ms. No. 118 Health dated 25th January 1966, there was no question of the petitioner being reemployed after the expiry of the said period of three months, and it was only the the latter Government Order which contemplated such re -employment. In my opinion this argument is also misconceived. For re -employment of a retired Government servant no such specific provision is necessary, and so long as there is no prohibition under the statutory rules, certainly the Government had the power to re -employ such persons. Even with reference to G.O. Ms. No. 118 Health dated 25th January 1966, it was certainly open to the Government to retire a person on giving three months notice and thereafter to re -employ him, if such re -employment was necessary in the public interests. Therefore, there is no substance in this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The learned Counsel repeatedly contended before me that G.O. Ms. No. 118 Health dated 25th January 1966 made under Fundamental Rule 56 (a) conferred a right on the petitioner to continue in service even after he completed the age of 55 years and that right could not be taken away and his continued service could not be converted into an year into year service by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 2309 Health dated 4th December 1969. This argument ignores the conditions imposed in G.O. Ms. No. 118 Health dated 25th January 1966 which provided that notwithstanding the change in the age of the superannuation, the Government reserved the power to retire a particular Government servant who was continued in service after his completion of 55 years, by giving him three months notice. If this condition is borne in mind, there is no question of the right conferred on a person like the petitioner by G.O. Ms. No. 118 Health dated 25th January 1966 being taken away by G.O. Ms. No. 2309 Health dated 4th December 1969. As a matter of fact, the validity of such a condition imposed in G.O. Ms. No. 118 Health dated 25th January 1966 was upheld and approved by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to above. Under these circumstances, no case has been made out for interference Consequently the writ petition fails and it is dismissed, But there will be no order as to costs.