STOCK MARKET BSE 38040.57 15.12(0.04%) NSE 11214.05 13.90(0.12%)
Home Cities Chennai
Madras HC junks plea against extending retirement age for govt staff facing corruption charges
“We are of the view that such extension of service in favour of those government servants would not absolve their delinquency,” observed the bench
Published: 07th August 2020 08:19 PM | Last Updated: 07th August 2020 08:19 PM | A+A A-
Madras High Court Madras High Court (File Photo | PTI)By Harish MuraliExpress News Service
CHENNAI: Observing that the extension of the age of retirement of government employees by the state is a policy decision, which the court cannot interfere with, a division bench of the Madras High Court on Friday dismissed a plea which sought to restrain the state from extending the retirement age from 58 to 59 for government servants who were facing corruption charges.
The court also said, “The government servant may be relieved or discharged of the charges framed against him on notice that the charges are not proved in the departmental proceedings.”
The two-member bench of justices R Subbiah and Krishnan Ramasamy in their order also observed that the state submitted that the increased retirement age from 58 years to 59 years will not apply to all the government servants irrespective of the disciplinary proceedings pending against them under the relevant rules.
The court also observed that the government clarified the contentions made by the petitioner. “We are of the view that such extension of service in favour of those government servants would not absolve their delinquency nor will it in any manner aid them to get a clean chit in their favour in the departmental proceedings. The retention of the government servant in service beyond the age of retirement is only for the conclusion of departmental enquiry,” observed the bench.
The court also observed that the petitioner has not come up with any facts and figures to substantiate the same. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition without any documentary proof to
substantiate the averments, it added.
“Therefore, this is a fit case for imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner for having filed the present vexatious writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, however, we desist from doing so by taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case,” the court observed.
The court then dismissed the plea.