J.V. Rajasekaran vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

S. Nagamuthu, J—The appellant is an employee of the State Government, working in the Revenue Department. He filed W.P(MD)No. 7086 of 2014, seeking a declaration to declare that the provisions contained in FR 56(1)(a) with reference to the age of retirement of an employee in superior service, i.e., 58 years is ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and against Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently revise the age of retirement of State Government employees in superior services as 60 years of age on par with the Central Government employees of similarly placed persons and allow the petitioner to continue in service till attaining the age of 60 years with consequential benefits. That Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 23.04.2014. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court, with this Writ Appeal.

This Writ Appeal has come up today for admission. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader, taking notice for the respondents 1 to 3.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned provision violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in as much as, the employees of the Central Government and State Government should be treated on par with each other, in the matter of retirement age. But, we are not persuaded by the said argument. The learned Single Judge has made an extensive reference to a Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in K. Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, AIR 1985 SC 551 : (1985) 51 FLR 166 : (1985) 1 LLJ 444 : (1985) 1 SCALE 31 : (1985) 1 SCC 523 : (1985) 2 SCR 579 : (1985) 1 SLJ 277 , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that it is a policy matter of the Government fixing the retirement age. Above all, in our considered view, what the petitioner wants to do is to equate him with unequals so as to bring the help of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our considered view, the Central Government employees form one group, whereas the State Government employees form a different group and they cannot be equated as they are unequals and therefore question of violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, does not arise.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Fifth Pay Commission recommended to raise the retirement age of the State Government employees to 60. In our considered view, it is only a recommendation. It is for the State Government either to accept or to reject, as it involves policy of the State Government.

Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as it is in tune with the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this Writ Appeal.

In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.