LAWS(MAD)-1968-2-23

C S DEVASAHAYAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS

Decided On February 01, 1968
C.S.DEVASAHAYAM Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is filed by a retired Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Government of Madras to continue the service of the petitioner in the Commercial Department until he reaches 58 years of age.

(2.) THE Petitioner joined the service of the Government of Madras in the Revenue department on 16-2-1931. In 1948, he opted to the Commercial Taxes department where he served for about 18 years, On attaining the age of 55, he was retired from service on 25-4-1966. The order retiring the petitioner is challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory, in that, while the servants of the Central Government are retired only at the age of 58, the State Government servants are forced to retire on attaining 55 years, and that even regarding the state Government Service, while in the case of certain departments, the age of retirement is 53, the members of the service belonging to the petitioner's department are obliged to retire at 55 years. It is contended that this amounts to unfair discrimination and not valid in law.

(3.) RULE 56 of the Fundamental Rules of the Madras Government provides that the date of compulsory retirement of Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of fifty five years. The State of Madras examined the question of increasing the age of retirement of its employees to fifty eight as had been done by the Central Government and decided that the age of superannuation of the state Government servants should remain at 55. But in respect of certain categories, in modification of the policy of retiring the Government Servants at fifty five, raised the age of superannuation from fifty five to fifty eight by issuing suitable amendments to govern such services. The list of services for which the age of retirement was raised to fifty eight is given in para (4) of the supplemental counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. Nine categories of services are listed of which regarding the posts covered by categories (1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (8)and (9) the main reason given for the extension of the age of superannuation is that there was dearth of qualified persons. Regarding category (2), the reason given is that the members of the State Higher Judicial Service are treated on a par with the officers of the I. A. S. cadre in the matter of pay, pension and retirement benefits, and since the Government of India have raised the age of I. A. S. and I. P. S. Officers to fifty eight, the Madras Government have also raised the age of superannuation in respect of District Judges. In respect of category (7), the reason is that in order to enable the Government to utilise the services of the technically qualified and experienced persons, such extension was given.