Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SUBRAMANIAN, G. ARUL MURUGAN, JJ
R.R.Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Headmaster, The Chennai Port & Dock Educational – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Writ Court dated 28.03.2024 in WP No.13565 of 2022, the appellant has preferred this Appeal.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.07.2021 informing the appellant that she is superannuated from the services of the first respondent School with effect from 31.05.2021 and for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to reinstate the appellant forthwith as per G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 which enhanced the age of retirement of Government Servants from 58 to 60.
3. The appellant who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the first respondent School attained the age of 58 was thus superannuated under the impugned communication dated 22.07.2021 with effect from 31.05.2021. It is the contention of the appellant that she would be entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 07.05.2020 wherein the Government increased the age of retirement of Government employees from 58 to 59 and G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 25.02.2021 under which the age of retirement was increased to 60. Since the a
Government Orders increasing retirement age do not apply to private school employees, as employment contracts govern such matters.
The State has the discretion to frame its own laws relating to education and is not bound to accept or follow UGC regulations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
The Court held that the enhancement of age of superannuation to 62 years is a policy decision of the State Government and does not automatically apply to employees governed by independent Bye-laws.
A Cabinet decision requires formal implementation to be enforceable; the absence of such an order renders claims based on it invalid.
Cabinet decisions require formal orders to be enforceable; without such orders, claims for retirement age extension are not valid.
The fixed age of retirement established at the time of employment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments must operate prospectively.
Fixed age of retirement established at the time of appointment cannot be altered to the detriment of employees, and any amendments operate prospectively.
The extension of the benefit of enhancement of age of superannuation is a policy decision of the Government, but it cannot be used to discriminate against certain employees.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
