LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-75

K C GOVINDAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On April 17, 2006
K C GOVINDAN Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petition has been filed praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the fourth respondent issued in Roc. (M3)/40061/05, dated 31. 07. 2005, and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to permit the petitioner to continue in service as Headmaster cum Warden of GTR Middle school, Varam , Kalrayan Hills, Sankarapuram Taluk , Villupuram District.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and he was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 04. 11. 1970 at the Government Elementary School . After serving in such capacity at various Government Elementary Schools, he was promoted as a Headmaster and posted at Adi DravidarWelfare School , Rangamangalam ,Cuddalore Taluk on 01. 06. 1988. Later, he was transferred and posted as Headmaster and Warden, Government Tribal Elementary School , Varam , Kalrayan Hills at Sankarapuram Taluk , Villupuram District. Further, the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation on 31. 07. 2005. Before attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner had worked for more than 34 years. The petitioner has an unblemished record of service and had discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The petitioner is also physically and mentally fit to continue in service, atleast till the end of the academic year. Before his retirement, the petitioner had made a representation through his letter, dated 01. 06. 2005 seeking re-employment till the end of the academic year. i. e. ,

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner on attainment of the age of superannuation was permitted to retire from Government service on the afternoon on 31. 07. 2005, under F. R. 56 (1) with a condition to deduct a sum of rs. 2,51,627/- for the excess claim by him pending to the Government, in one lump sum from his D. C. R. G. He further contends that, in any case, the amount due from the petitioner is liable to be recovered from the petitioner.