1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN W.P.(MD).No.7055 of 2011 S.Chelladurai ... Petitioner Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Commissioner Municipal Administration Chepauk Chennai - 600 005 3. The Commissioner Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation Tirunelveli ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider and pass orders on the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 3220/2002/C1 dated November 2007 and thereby pay entire terminal benefits to the petitioner with interest within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. *** For Petitioner : Mr. G.Thalaimutharasu For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.B.Pugalendhi Special Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent : Mr.S.P.Maharajan O R D E R Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.S.P.Maharajan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider and pass orders on the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 3220/2002/C1 dated November 2007 and thereby pay entire terminal benefits to the petitioner with interest within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he has joined as unskilled worker on 09.04.1975 in the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation under the contingent service. Subsequently, he was regularised in service with effect from 15.4.1985 and was working as Overhead Tank Watchman (Unskilled Labour). He was relieved from service on 31.05.2002 on attaining the age of superannuation. When pension proposal was forwarded by the authority, there was internal communication between them that the petitioner should have been relieved from service on 31.05.2000 itself instead of on 31.05.2002 as the retirement age of Unskilled labour is 58 years and not 60 years. The continuation of service is not his fault. Further his service is utilised by the respondents. 5. The petitioner is receiving only a provisional pension for a sum of Rs.1,275/-. The third respondent, considering the pitiable condition of the petitioner, took all efforts for getting sanction of the terminal benefits of the petitioner, to the first respondent through the second respondent. However, no action has been taken by the first respondent and hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for the reliefs stated earlier. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on all the parties concerned. 7. In the given case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has joined as unskilled worker on 09.04.1975 in the Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation under the contingent service. Subsequently, he was regularised in service with effect from 15.4.1985 and was working as Overhead Tank Watchman (Unskilled Labour). He was relieved from service on 31.05.2002. 8. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 seems to be that he should have been relieved on 31.05.2000 instead of 31.05.2002, as the retirement age for the Unskilled Labour is 58 years and not 60 years. 9. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the continuation of petitioner's service till the age of 60 years is not his fault. In view of the said fact, I am of the considered view that the respondents 1 and 2 cannot withhold the pension payable to the petitioner and pay only the provisional pension. For no fault of the petitioner, he is being paid only the provisional pension. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 10. In view of the above said position, I am of the considered view that the first respondent has to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the proceedings of the third respondent and also in the light of the observations made above. 11. In fine, the Writ Petition stands allowed. It is needless to state that the first respondent has to settle the entire terminal benefits and also the pension to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary The State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009 2. The Commissioner Municipal Administration Chepauk Chennai - 600 005 3. The Commissioner Tirunelveli Municipal Corporation Tirunelveli +1cc to Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate, Sr.No.21114 vsg ssk/13.07.2011 /5c -3p/- W.P.(MD).No.7055 of 2011 01.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/