Madras High CourtWP(MD)/6442/2020dismissed

S.Germani Isabella v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

2020-06-08Honourable Mr Justice C.V. Karthikeyan27 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.06.2020 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN W.P(MD) Nos. 6442, 6451 to 6454, 6457 to 6459, 6461 to 6468, 6470, 6471, 6476, 6479, 6482 of 2020 and WMP(MD) Nos. 5740, 5741, 5750 to 5753, 5755 to 5757, 5759, 5760, 5762, 5764, 5766 to 5783, 5785, 5787, 5788 to 5793 and 5799 to 5804 of 2020 S.Germani Isabella, W/o. Sebastian Alexander, Loyola Illam, Near St.James Hr.Sec.School, Madurai Main Road, A.Vellodu, Dindigul District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6442 of 2020

P.Geetha Headmaster, Panchayat Union Middle School, Avaniyapuram, Thirupparankundram Union, Madurai District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6451 of 2020

S. Manoharan Moses, BT Assistant (Maths), St. Johns Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6452 of 2020

K.Alamelu, Headmistress, Panchayat Union Primary School, Varapalayam, Karur Union, Karur District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6453 of 2020

R.Michael Lilly Pushpam, Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Thirupudaimaruthur, Pappakudi Union, Tirunelveli District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6454 of 2020

R.Valluvan, Headmaster, Panchayat Union Primary School, Puliyampatti, Thottiyam Union, Trichy District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6457 of 2020

K.J.Anbarasu, S/o. K. John Gurupatham, No.25/5 D.R.K. Apartments, Keela Vaikol Kara Street, Woraiyur, Trichy.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6458 of 2020

S.Easwari, Assistant Professor (Tamil), Sri Parasakthi Collge For Women, Courtallam, Tenkasi Dist

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6459 of 2020

D.Rajaram,S/o. S.Devapackiam, 547-A1, Thattankulam West, Pudhunagar, Palani -624601, Dindigul District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6461 of 2020

P.Pichai, Headmaster, Panchayat Union, Primary School, Petharipatti, Gandarvakkottai Union, Pudukkottai District

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6462 of 2020

R.Velsingh, 14/314, Palpandi Nagar, 6th Street, Millerpuram, Tuticorin District

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6463 of 2020

M.Alexander, S/o.Marimuthu, L90, TNHB Colony, Tenkasi 627811, Tenkasi District

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6464 of 2020

K. Panneerselvam, No.1/385 Rajanagar, Andan Kovil East,Karur-2 ...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6465 of 2020 T.S.R.Karunanidhi, S/o.R.Ramalingam, No.50, 3rd Street, Cauvery Nagar West, Thanjavur District 613 005 ...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6466 of 2020 J.Joseph Ravikumar, PG Assistant (Economics), V.V Higher Secondary School, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6467 of 2020

C. Saraswathidevi, D/o. A.L.Chelliah, No.3/765 Kalaignar Street, 3rd Street, Vilar Road, Thanjavur - 613 006.

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6468 of 2020

J.Siyamaladevi, D/o.R.Jegaratchagan, 1/44/18/1, 3rd St, Thirukumaran Nagar, Palayampatti, Aruppukottai-626118, Virudhunagar Dist

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6470 of 2020

K.Rajamanickam, S/o.S.Kalyani, 6/2052, North Street, M.Thottiangulam, Palayampatti, 626 112, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6471 of 2020

T. Ebenezer Daniel Thanaraj, S/o.G.Thangaraj, 5/680 Nethaji Nagar, II Street, Thoothukudi-628 002, Thoothukudi Dist

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6476 of 2020

V. Kalaiarasi, W/o.Robert Selvam, BT Assistant (English), No.350/1 Grace Cottage, Duraisamy Road, Tvs Nagar, Madurai-003

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6479 of 2020

S.Durai Pandi, BT Assistant in Science, Government Higher Secondary School, V.Malampatti-630 562, Sivagangai Dist

...Petitioner in WP(MD).No.6482 of 2020

VS.,

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to The Govt., Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-6

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-6

5. The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6442 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6

4. The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District

5. The District Educational Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District 6.The Block Educational Officer, Thiruparakundram, Madurai District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6451 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai -9

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9

3. The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6

4. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

5. The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

6. The Manager, Tirunelveli Diocease, St. Johns Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6452 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai -6, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-6

4. The Chief Educational Officer Karur, Karur District

5. The District Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District

6. The Block Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6453 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai -9

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9

3. The Director of Elementary Education,, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai -6

4. The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

5. The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.

6. The Block Educational Officer, Pappakudi Union, Tirunelveli District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6454 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai -9

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9

3. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai -6

4. The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy, Trichy District.

5. The District Educational Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

6. The Block Educational Officer, Thottiyam Union, Trichy District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6457 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department., Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Principal.Secretary School Education Department., Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai.

4. The Chief Educational Officer, Erode, Erode District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6458 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretriat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Director of Collegiate Education, O/o.The Collegiate Education Department, College Road, Chennai-6

4. The Registrar Manonamaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012

5. The Secretary, Sri Parasakthi College For Women, Courtallam, Tenkasi Dist

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6459 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personal and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St George, Chennai -9

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o. The School Education Department, College Road, Chennai 6

4. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai -6

5. The Chief Educational Officer, O/o. The Chief Educational Office, Dindigul Educational District, Dindigul District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6461 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Director of Elementary Education, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 6

4. The Chief Educational Officer Pudukottai, Pudukottai District

5. The District Educational Officer, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District

6. The Block Educational Officer, Gandarvakkottai Union, Pudukottai District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6462 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai

4. The Chief Educational Officer Namakkal District

5. The Secretary Sri Ramakrishna Chidambareswarar, Higher Secondary School, Udangudi, Tiruchendur, Tuticorin District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6463 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai -6

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-6

5. The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6464 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-009

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 3.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-6

4. The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6465 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai -6

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-6

5. The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6466 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9

2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o. the Commissioner of School Education Department, College Road, Chennai -6

4. The Director of School Education, O/o the School Education Department, College Road, Chennai -6

5. The Chief Educational Officer, O/o the Chief Educational Office, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

6. The Headmaster, V.V. Higher Secondary School, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6467 of 2020

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Depart., Secretariat, Chennai -9.

2. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai - 6.

5. The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6468 of 2020

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department., Secretariat, Chennai -9.

2. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai - 6.

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai - 6.

5. The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar Dist

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6470 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai -6

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, Chennai-6

5. The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6471 of 2020

1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9

2. State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Backward Class and Minorities Welfare, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-009

3. The Commissioner of Backward Class Welfare, Backward Class Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-005 4.The District Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Officer, The District Backward Class Welfare Office, Thoothukudi Dist

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6476 of 2020

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-009

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-009

3. The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-006

4. The Director of School Education, O/o.The School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-006

5. The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Madurai Dist

...Respondents in WP(MD).No.6479 of 2020

1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Chief Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Fort St.George, Chennai-009

2. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-009

3. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-006 4.The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai Dist

5.The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai Dist

6. The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, V.Malampatti-630 562, Sivagangai Dist ... Respondents in WP(MD)No.6482/2020 Prayer in WP(MD).No.6442 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.5.2020 and consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020 Prayer in WP(MD).No.6451 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020 in sofar as restricts to those who are in regular service as an date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6452 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)Department dated 07.05.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No. 11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct

the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020 Prayer in WP(MD).No.6453 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)Department dated 07.05.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No. 11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6457 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)Department dated 07.05.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No. 11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6458 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, in the nature of Writ, Calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st Respondent in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07-05-2020 and quash the same, in so far as it denies the benefits of increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 59 years to the writ petitioner is concerned, and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07-05-2020 to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to continue in service till attaining age of 59 years. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6459 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)Department dated 07.05.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No. 11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6462 of 2020 :

31.5.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department dated 07.05.2020. Prayer in WP(MD). 6463 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 and quash the same in so far as it denies the benefit of increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 59 years to the writ petitioner is concerned, and direct the Respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020 to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to continue in service till attaining age of 59 years. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6464 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Government order in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and consequential impugned order in Letter No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.(Ms).No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020 within the time period stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6465 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 and quash the same, in so far as it denies the benefit of increasing the age of superannuation from 58 years to 59 years to the Writ petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.5.2020 to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to continue in service till attaining the age of 59 years.

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6466 of 2020 :

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6467 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S)Department dated 07.05.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Letter No. 11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents herein to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020.

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6468 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Government Order in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.5.2020 and consequential impugned order Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequential to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020 within the time period stipulated.

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6470 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order Government Order in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.5.2020 and consequential impugned order Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020 within the time period stipulated.

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6471 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Government order in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.05.2020 and consequential impugned order in Letter No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 on the file of the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020 within the time period stipulated.

Prayer in WP(MD).No.6476 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of writ calling for the records relating to the impugned Government order in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 on the file of the respondent No.1 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.5.2020 and consequential impugned order in Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 on the file of the respondent No.1 and consequential impugned order in Na.Ka.PiNal/33570/2019 dated 30.5.2020 on the file of the respondent No.4 and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the Respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of the GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 07.05.2020 within the time period stipulated. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6479 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the

impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in GO Ms.NO.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 in so far as it restricts to those who are in regular service as on date and due to retire on superannuation from 31.5.2020 and consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings in Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 and quash the same a illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to extend the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 59 years in terms of GO Ms.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020. Prayer in WP(MD).No.6482 of 2020 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent Chief Secretary in GO Ms.No.51 (Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020 in so far as indicating that those who are in regular service is concerned and the consequential letter in Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.05.2020 quash the same and further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service as BT Assistant in Science in the 6th respondent school namely, the Government Higher Secondary School, V.Malampatti, Sivagangai District upto his age of 59 years i.e., till 31.5.2021 with all attendant benefits.

For Petitioner :Ms.K.Vidya, Advocate for Mr.J.Lawrence in WP(MD).No.6442 of 2020 Mr.T.Pon Kumar, Advocate WP(MD)Nos.6451 to 6454,6457 and 6462 of 2020 Mr.R.Ragavendran, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6458 of 2020 Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6459 of 2020 Mr.I.Sam Jegan, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6461 of 2020 Mr.V.Panner Selvam, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6463 of 2020,6465 of 2020 Mr.Aswin Rajasimman, Advocate for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy in WP(MD).Nos.6464, 6466, 6468,6470, 6471 and 6476 OF 2020 Mr.R.Maheswaran, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6467 of 2020 Mr.Mr.Mathew Moses, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6479 of 2020 Mr.S.Xavier Rajini, Advocate in WP(MD).No.6482 of 2020

For Respondents :

MR.K.Chellapandian, in all WPs Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader in all cases COMMON ORDER Since the issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, for disposal of these writ petitions the facts stated in W.P(MD)No.6442 of 2020 has taken up for discussion.

2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in G.O Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.5.2020 and consequential impugned order passed by the first respondent in proceedings in Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 and also sought for a direction to the respondents to extend the retirement age from 58 years to 59 years of the petitioner in terms of the G.O Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.5.2020. 2(a). Heard Ms.K.Vidya for Mr. J.Lawrance, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mrs.S. Srimathy, Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. Heard Mr.K.

Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and is now working as P.G. Assistant in Government Higher Secondary School, Pannaikadu, Dindigul District. The petitioner had retired on 31.03.2020 on reaching the age of superannuation and thereafter, she was granted re-employment upto 31.05.2020 as a Teacher in the Education Department. This has always been the practice, obviously for the welfare and in the interest of the students. If any teacher, particularly, in the higher secondary grade is granted extension then it is for the benefit of students. It is not any concession shown to the teacher.

If the teacher is an expert in Maths or Physics and suddenly retires half way during the academic year then a new teacher cannot be expected to continue to teach the syllabus in the manner in which the students are accustomed. In such circumstances, re-employment was granted only in the Education Department and more particularly for higher secondary grade teachers. On the date of superannuation the employer and employee relationship had become frustrated. Out of a sense of duty, the teacher continues in service to teach the students with a noble object in mind. The teacher will be relieved from service and an order would be passed terminating the agreement on completion of the academic year.

4. The writ petitioner has retired on superannuation on 31.03.2020. The employee and employer relationship stood frustrated on that date. Thereafter, a letter was issued and the petitioner

was requested to continue her service on the conditions stipulated. The petitioner can be removed from service at any point of time. Any order of termination of the agreement or any other order passed during the period of contractual extension would not require any disciplinary proceedings to be initiated. An order determining service is enough.

5. The petitioner had enjoyed all benefits during the period of her regular service. After the academic year comes to an end the service of the petitioner would stand automatically terminated. The petitioner cannot get any further extension of period flowing to the next academic year.

6. In the present case, the writ petitioner who is before this Court had retired on 31.03.2020. The writ petitioner was granted period of extension through a letter/agreement. It is not an extension of service. She was requested to continue teaching for the benefit of students till the end of the academic year. The petitioner who had taken up the offer cannot seek any additional benefit.

7. In the present year, a Government Order came to be passed, namely, G.O Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.5.2020. By this Government Order, the Government had decided to increase the age of superannuation of Government service from 58 years to 59 years. It was stated that this would apply to all those who are in regular service as on that date and due to retire on superannuation on 31.05.2020. The Government Order was issued on 07.05.2020. The writ petitioner was not in regular service on 07.05.2020. She was only a contractual employee. She cannot claim any benefit under the aforesaid Government order. A clarification was issued stating that the order would not apply to those who had attained the age of superannuation on or before 01.05.2020.

The petitioner herein had already retired on superannuation on 31.03.2020. There cannot be two retirements on superannuation. Every person will attain the age of 58 years only once in his/her life time. The petitioner had attained the age of 58 years as on 31.03.2020, cannot claim any further benefit as she is no longer a regular employee. The Government order also stated that the order shall also be applicable to all teaching and nonteaching staff working in aided educational institutions and employees of all Constitutional/Statutory Bodies, Public Sector Undertakings including all State Corporations, Local Bodies, Boards, Commissions, Societies, etc.

8. The benefit of the Government order by a conjoint reading will apply only to those who were in regular service as on 31.05.2020 and those who are due to retire on superannuation as on 31.05.2020. I hold that the entire writ petition is misconceived.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that at the time of admission of earlier writ petitions

it had been stated that similarly placed writ petitioners would not claim any monetary benefit. That is a statement which can have no bearing on extension of service. The petitioner cannot claim any extension. The learned counsel also stated that the date 31.05.2020, had been fixed arbitrarily and no reason had been given. It is an executive decision and this Court is not prepared to examine that aspect. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that COVID-19 pandemic lockdown was announced as early as on 31.03.2020. I am not able to comprehend the inference that by implication, the petitioner should be deemed to be in regular service even after that date. The Government Order can be only prospective in nature. It cannot be retrospective. There has got to be a cut off date.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also questioned Lr.No.11308/S/2020-1 dated 14.5.2020 by which a clarification was issued regarding G.O.Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.5.2020. In the clarification it had been stated that the Government order is not applicable to those teaching staffs such as Teachers, Lectures, Professors etc., who have already retired prior to 31.05.2020 but re-employed for the remaining academic year.

11. The teachers were granted extension of period with the hope that they would extend their knowledge for the benefit of students. On the other hand, they are now claiming extension of service which is condemnable. They cannot be given any false hope. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to an interim order of a learned Single Judge wherein the Government order had been kept in abeyance. That is an issue beyond the purview of this Court.

12. This Court is not able to understand the grounds on which the writ petition has filed. The relationship of employer and employee has been frustrated on the date of superannuation. They have been granted extension of period only to teach the students on contractual basis.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also stated that the petitioner had retired on superannuation on 31.03.2020 itself and imputed an oblique motive on the Government stating that the order had been passed only because the Government was not in a position to pay the retirement benefits of those who retire from service on superannuation. As stated in the Government Order in G.O Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.5.2020 the extension is only for those who retired after 31.05.2020. Naturally there cannot be any denial of pensionary benefits for those who retired prior to 31.05.2020.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that there has been discrimination between the petitioner, whose services had been extended and regular employees, who were in service as on

31.05.2010. I hold that the petitioner cannot be categorized as a regular employee on account of retirement by superannuation on 31.03.2020. Therefore, on 31.05.2020, the petitioner cannot be compared with an employee in regular service. The petitioner, on 31.05.2020, was not in regular service. The petitioner was only on service under an agreement / contract. Therefore, there cannot be any issue of discrimination or even comparison between the petitioner and a regular employee as on 31.05.2020.

15. Reference has been made to AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India) and in particular to paragraph No.47. "47.Assuming the Government had not prescribed the specified date and thereby provided that those retiring pre and post the specified date would all be governed by the liberalised pension scheme, undoubtedly, it would be both prospective and retroactive."

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore stated that G.O.Ms.No.51, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 07.05.2020 should also be retrospective in effect. Unfortunately, the ratio laid down in the above judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner had retired on superannuation on 31.03.2020. The Employer / Employee relationship stood frustrated on that date. The petitioner cannot claim any further benefit from the Government apart from the pensionary and retirement benefits. Therefore, the date fixed in the Government Order in the instant case, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. This would lead to an anomalous situation where every employee in every department, who retired at any point of time prior to 31.05.

2020 would seek extension of service as a matter of right. Such a situation cannot be permitted by any Court of law. Grant of pension is a right arising out of the service and is a separate and distinct issue altogether. That was a primary issue before the Constitution Bench in the above judgment.

17. Reference has also been made to 2010 (9) SCC 496 (M/s.Kranti Association Private Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others) and in particular to paragraph Nos.17 and 18. "17. The expression `speaking order' was first coined by Lord Chancellor Earl Cairns in a rather strange context. The Lord Chancellor, while explaining the ambit of Writ of Certiorari, referred to orders with errors on the face of the record and pointed out that an order with errors on its face, is a speaking order. (See 1878-97 Vol. 4 Appeal Cases 30 at 40 of the report)

18. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be like the inscrutable face of a Sphinx'."

18. In the instant case, the Government Order had been passed with reference to regular employees and it is only those employees, who can seek any explanation about the Government Order. The petitioner, who is not in regular service, cannot complain about the Government Order, which does not apply to her at all. As repeatedly pointed out she is not a regular employee.

19. On very similar facts, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chandra Mohan Varma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2020(2) Scale 251 had held as follows:

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed, by its judgment dated 2 February 2018, a Writ Petition instituted by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. By his petition, the appellant sought a mandamus for his continuance in service as Professor and Head of the Department of Cardiology of the LPS Institute of Cardiology in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur until he attained the age of 65. He claimed this relief on the basis of a notification dated 6 February 2015 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh extending the age of retirement from 60 to 65 years. The appellant had before the issuance of the above government notification attained the age of superannuation of 60 years on 13 August 2014.

But, in terms of a Government decision ("GO") dated 19 November 2012, he had been granted a `session benefit' of an extension of service up to 30 June 2015. Based on this extension, the appellant's case is that he is entitled to the extension in the age of retirement which has been brought about by the notification dated 6 February 2015. This claim has been repelled by the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court which is questioned in appeal.

.....

On 6 August 2014, an order was issued by the Director General, Medical Education & Training, on an application moved by the appellant on 31 May 2014 granting the benefit of an extension of service until the end of the session subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the GO dated 19 November 2012. Apprehending that his services would be discontinued on 30 June 2015 at the conclusion of the academic session, the appellant instituted a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking to interdict his retirement before he attained the age of 65.

....

18.

The date on which the employee attains the age of superannuation is prescribed by the Fundamental Rules. The decision which was communicated by the State Government on 19 November 2012 does not alter the date of superannuation

or retirement. However, what the decision effectuates is to allow the continuance of the employee, after retirement, upon the attainment of the age of superannuation with the salient purpose of preventing a disruption in education instruction prior to the end of the academic session. This view is fortified by the fact that the continuance of the employee until the end of the session is subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated, as noticed above.

19. The determination of the age of retirement is a matter of executive policy. The appellant attained the age of superannuation prior to the notification dated 6 February 2015 and was not entitled to the benefit of the enhancement of the age of retirement.

....

23. The issue in Civil Appeal Nos.6667-6668 of 2019 (Dr.Profesor Rajendra Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) was distinct from the central point in this case. In the present case the issue is whether the appellant who had already attained the age of superannuation under the prevailing rules and was continuing until the end of the session would be entitled to the benefit of the enhancement of the age of retirement under the notification dated 6 February 2015. The decision in Dr Rajendra Chaudhary (referred supra) is hence distinguishable.

24. For the reasons that we have indicated, we hold that the appellant who attained the age of 60 years - the age of retirement which prevailed at the relevant time was not entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 6 February 2015. The appellant was continuing until the end of the session (30 June 2015) after retirement, in terms of the decision dated 19 November 2012. He was not entitled to the enhanced age of retirement of 65 years. The terminal benefits which are due to the appellant shall be accordingly computed and released within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. For the reasons which we have indicated, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the appeals. The appeals shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. The said Judgement is directly binding on this Court. The petitioner is similarly not entitled to the benefit under G.O Ms.No.51 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 7.5.2020.

21. Therefore, for all the reasons as stated above the relief sought for by the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed with following direction: (i) A direction is issued to the first respondent/Government to process the pension papers and pay the pensionary and retirement benefits to the petitioner as applicable, on or before 31.07.2020. If there is any delay, the petitioner would be entitled to seek that appropriate interest be levied.

22. In view of the above, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To

1. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Chief Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 3.The Prl.Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms(S)Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 4.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

5.The Commissioner of School Education, O/o.The Commissioner of School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-6 6.The Director of School Education, O/o.The School Education Department, College Road, Chennai-6 7.The Director of Elementary Education,, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-6 8.The Commissioner of Backward Class Welfare, Backward Class Welfare Department, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-005 9.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Dindigul, Dindigul District.

10.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai, Madurai District

11.The District Educational Officer, Thirumangalam, Madurai District 12.The Chief Educational Officer, Tirunelveli,Tirunelveli District.

13.The District Educational Officer, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

14.The Chief Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District 15.The District Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District 16.The Block Educational Officer, Karur, Karur District 17.The Block Educational Officer, Pappakudi Union, Tirunelveli District.

18.The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy, Trichy District.

19.The District Educational Officer, Musiri, Trichy District.

20.The Block Educational Officer, Thottiyam Union, Trichy District.

21.The Chief Educational Officer, Erode, Erode District 22.The Registrar, Manonamaniam Sundaranar University, Abishekapatti, Tirunelveli-627 012 23.The Chief Educational Officer Pudukottai, Pudukottai District 24.The District Educational Officer, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District 25.The Block Educational Officer, Gandarvakkottai Union, Pudukottai District 26.The Chief Educational Officer Namakkal District 27.The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District 28.The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District

29.The Chief Educational Officer, O/o the Chief Educational Office, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.

30.The Headmaster, V.V. Higher Secondary School, Ponnamaravathi, Pudukkottai District.

31.The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District 32.The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar Dist 33.The Chief Educational Officer O/o.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District 34.The District Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Officer, The District Backward Class Welfare Office, Thoothukudi Dist 35.The Chief Educational Officer Sivagangai Dist 36.The District Educational Officer, Sivagangai Dist 37.The Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, V.Malampatti-630 562, Sivagangai Dist 38 The Additional Advocate General, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

39 The Special Government Pleader, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

40.The District Educational Officer, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli.

41.The Block Educational Officer, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District. 42.The Chief Educational Officer, Karur District. 43.The Chief Educational Officer, Madurai District. 44.The Principal Secretary, Department of Backward Class and Minorities Welfare, Secretariat, Fort.St.George, Chennai. ksa/mm Common order passed in W.P(MD) Nos. 6442, 6451 to 6454, 6457 to 6459, 6461 to 6468, 6470, 6471, 6476, 6479, 08.06.2020 SMA/17/06/2020/27P/45C