M. VEERASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's request for retirement benefits including pension fixation came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not passed the accounts test for subordinate officers Part-I till his date of retirement, which is compulsory as per Adhoc Rules for the purpose of probation and further promotion, through the impugned order dated 17.11.2017, which is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner's services was regularised, the reason cited by the respondents that he has not passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I for his declaration and further promotion is unsustainable. The learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner's services came to be regularised from 16.10.1989 and the relevant rules came to be introduced much after the retirement of the petitioner, the impugned order placing reliance on such subsequent rules cannot be sustained. It is also his submission that when the petitioner has been treated in par with the other successful candidates who had passed the special qualifying examination conducted by TNPSC, he should also be extended with a similar treatment, in the absence of which, it would amount to discrimination.