Begin typing your search...

Lecturer’s plea to extend retirement age dismissed

The Madras High Court dismissed a plea moved by a lecturer seeking to extend his retirement age to 62 after misconstruing a Government Order (GO) that directed that no retired teachers after the age of 62 be appointed in any statutory or even non-statutory position in universities or colleges.

Lecturer’s plea to extend retirement age dismissed
Madras High Court


Dismissing the plea moved by S Rajendiran, who retired as mathematics lecturer at Jawahar Science College, Neyveli, a division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice N Seshasayee pointed out that the 2003 GO has only provided the outer age limit for the superannuated teachers for being employed in any statutory or non-statutory position, adding that itdoes not mention, even remotely, the possibility of extending the age of retirement beyond 58 years.

“It is surprising that the appellant should pretend innocence as if he could not understand the uncomplicated meaning of the GO in question and impose on it a meaning which the GO does not accommodate,” the bench said.

Rajendiran said he had retired on April 30, 2016 after serving as lecturer at Jawahar Science College for 23 years. But as per the GO issued by the Higher Education Department dated August 18, 2003, the age of retirement of principals and teachers in self-financing colleges is 62 years, he said, contending that he should not have been relieved from services when he turned 58.

He also argued that retirement age for teachers in the matriculation and CBSE schools run by the Jawahar Education Society was 62 years, and hence sought parity.

A single judge had dismissed his plea stating that he cannot demand any extension as a matter of right. This led to the present appeal. However, the bench led by Justice Sathyanarayanan said the court concurred with the findings of the single judge and did not find any merit in the appeal.

When informed that Rajendiran was occupying the official quarters ever after retirement citing the litigation, the bench said, “By his sheer misconception, he has only managed to help himself with extended stay in the official quarters beyond the date of retirement. He has to now vacate it.”

Visit to explore our interactive epaper!

Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

Click here for iOS

Click here for Android

Next Story