w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



V. Veerasamy v/s The Director, National Institute of Technical Teachers Training and Research, Taramani, Chennai & Others

    W.P.No. 29024 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014, 1 & 2 of 2015

    Decided On, 12 July 2022

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: R.Md.Nasrullah, Advocate. For the Respondents: S.N. Ravichandran, Senior counsel, S. Bazeer Ahmed, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent institute vide No.Dir/Cons.Admn/2014-15 dated 03.11.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner.)

The Writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order dated 03.11.2014.

2. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent made a submission that the petitioner was initially appointed as Senior Administrative Officer on deputation for 2 years vide proceedings dated 11.12.2009. The service of the writ petitioner was extended by 3 months on 11.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Consultant for a period of 11 months vide order dated 02.04.2012. The services of the writ petitioner was extended as consultant thereafter on 01.03.2013 for 11 months and vide order dated 01.02.2014, the services were extended for 6 months and on 01.08.2014, the services were extended for 3 months and finally on 01.11.2014 for 6 months. Thereafter, by order dated 03.11.2014, the petitioner was terminated from service.

3. As per Clause 4 of Service Rules, the age of retirement is 60 years for the employees of the respondent / Institution. The writ petitioner even at the time of filing the Writ petition was aged about 62 years and now he would be around 70 years. Therefore, he served in the respondent / Institution as a Consultant till the order of termination was passed in proceedings dated 03.11.2014. Even at that point of time, the petitioner was around 60 years of age.

4. This being the factum, no further adjudication nee

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ds to be undertaken in respect of the grounds raised by the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
O R