Madras High CourtWP(MD)/19011/2016disposed of

M.Ravi, v. The Director General Of

2016-09-30Honourable Dr. Justice S. Vimala2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.09.2016 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE S.VIMALA Writ Petition (MD) No.19011 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.13742 of 2016 M.Ravi .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director General of Police, Chennai -4.

2.The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Chennai - 4.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till at the age of 60 years with all benefits as per Rule 56(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules.

For petitioner ... Mr.V.Panneer Selvam For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the age of 60 years with all benefits as per Rule 56(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3.When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents has produced an order of the third respondent, dated 30.09.2016, which states that the services of the petitioner has been brought to an end by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

30.09.2016.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that normally, the retirement age of the last grade servant is 60 years and the order passed is against law.

5.It is not explained as to what is the correct age of the petitioner and what are the documents relating to that. It is also not explained how the order passed is illegal. 6.In the order dated 30.09.2016, it is stated that this order permitting retirement is on account of superannuation. The petitioner has also received the order copy and the date is 30.09.2016. This writ petition has been filed one day prior to that. Atleast during admission, the fact that the petitioner has received the order dated 30.09.2016 should have been brought to the notice of the Court. The remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the order, dated 30.09.2016.

7.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar rj2 To 1.The Director General of Police, Chennai -4.

2.The Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Chennai - 4.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy.

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No. 57954 +1cc to Mr.V.PanneerSelvam Advocate Sr.No. 58076 JAM/18.11.16/CK/2p-6c Writ Petition (MD) No.19011 of 2016 30.09.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/