E P PERUMAL Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. T. Sellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents 1 to 3 and have perused the records.

(2.) THIS writ petition is filed against the order of the Tramil Nadu Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'Tribunal'] dated 29.12.2003 in declining to grant re-employment benefits to the petitioner from 01.10.2003 to 31.5.2004.

(3.) AS liberty was granted to the respondents to pass orders in terms of the proposal sent on behalf of the petitioner, the second respondent, by an order dated 18.11.2003, rejected the request made on behalf of the petitioner informing that since he had participated in the illegal strike called by JACTEO-JEO and as he had violated Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, was dismissed from service and, therefore, ineligible to get the re-employment. It was only pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court, he was reinstated in service on certain conditions, and, therefore, the respondent stated that the question of permitting his continuance after the age of superannuation on re-employment basis, was not feasible. In that view of the matter, he was relieved from his service on 30.9.2003. The petitioner once again had approached the Tribunal with O.A. No. 3877 of 2003 challenging the said order.