LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-125

M.SUCEELA BAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On September 20, 2019
M.Suceela Bai Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order, dated 27.11.2017, passed in W.P.No.6007 of 2017, the appellant/writ petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal.

(2.) Case of the appellant, before the writ Court, is that she entered the Office of the respondents, as Typist in the year 1976, through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and gradually, promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and then as Tahsildar. After serving as PA to Sub-Collector, Dharmapuri District, which is a post equivalent to the cadre of Tahsildar, she was posted as Tahsildar at Harur Taluk on 05.09.2011 and then, transferred to the office of the District Collector, Dharmapuri, on 15.03.2012, where she attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2013. She was also permitted to retire from service, without prejudice to the disciplinary action initiated against her.

(3.) Before the writ Court, it is the further case of the appellant/petitioner that though she was permitted to retire from service on 30.04.2013, without prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated against her, she was not given full pension and was allowed to get only provisional pension, even though the respondents have not come forward to issue any charge-memo, till the date of filing of the writ petition, which has put to great hardship to her. After the lapse of four years from the date of attaining age of the superannuation on 30.04.2013, the respondents cannot issue any charge-memo, under Rule 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules.