A.VENUGOPAL Vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and the learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the records.

(2.) Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner while working as Executive Engineer (Agriculture Engineering) at Krishnagiri, was placed under suspension on 28/11/2017, a day before attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 29/11/2017; that he was not permitted to retire from service by the first respondent vide proceedings dtd. 30/11/2017; and that the respondents without finalizing the proceedings initiated against him are only paying subsistence allowance.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that if only the respondents allowed him to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner would be entitled to receive terminal benefits including encashment of Leave salary, Unearned Leave and Special Provident Fund and other benefits.