IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.07.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU Writ Petition No.12044 of 1999 M.P.Manoharan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai 600 003 2. The Zonal Officer Zone II, Corporation of Chennai Chennai 600 001 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Ma.A.2/Na.Ka.No.C3/5053/2003 dated 27.6.2003 passed by the second respondent and quash the order passed therein in so far as the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all concommitant and attendant benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed For Respondents : Mr.T.Mathi O R D E R The petitioner in the present Writ Petition challenges the order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the second respondent Corporation, wherein and by which the petitioner and other employees of the Corporation who were about to retire were informed that they will be relieved from service with effect from 30.6.2003 on their reaching the age of superannuation, which was 58 years for Class III employees and the petitioner's name finds at Sl.No.4, wherein he was described as Conservancy Maistry. 2. According to the petitioner, the reduction of retirement age into 58 years was erroneous. As he belongs to Class IV employee, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ should have continued in service till 60 years. He made several representations and when they were not respondended favourably, he filed the present Writ Petition. 3. Pending the Writ Petition, interim stay was granted on 29.4.2004. Subsequently, this Court by an order dated 15.4.2005 vacated the interim order and expedited the Writ Petition. 4. The respondent Corporation has filed a counter affidavit dated 23.7.2008. It is stated that though the petitioner was appointed as Peon on 1.10.1966, his designation was changed as Conservancy Peon and he was transferred to Zonal Office on 11.6.1974. As per the circular dated 24.8.1987, the Post of Conservancy Peon was redesignated as Conservancy Maistry with prescribed qualification such as having passed VIII Standard and Tamil as a mother tongue. The scale of pay was also revised as per the Circular and the petitioner was granted Special Grade in the post of Conservancy Maistry. 5. Therefore, the said post having been classified as Class III, the age of retirement cannot be 60 years and it is only 58 years, as ordered by the Corporation by its circular dated 17.7.1998. When the Writ Petitioner has not chosen to challenge the earlier circular, by which the retirement age was reduced for the post of Conservancy Maistry, he cannot challenge now at the time of retirement that he ought to have been treated as Class IV employee and he should have continued in service till 60 years of age. 6. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner has signed the pension papers even earlier to his retirement. Therefore, his retirement was in accordance with the Rules. 7. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ajr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Commissioner Corporation of Chennai Chennai 600 003 2. The Zonal Officer Zone II, Corporation of Chennai Chennai 600 001 W.P.No.12044 of 1999 BVR {CO} TP/1.8.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/