Madras High Court
The Director (Tanhoda) vs S.P.Karuppaiah on 24 July, 2018
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh, M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.07.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
W.A.(MD).Nos.951 of 2018 to 953 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.6331 to 6333 of 2018
1.The Director (TANHODA)
Department of Horticulture,
Chennai-5.
2.The Deputy Director of Horticulture
Department of Horticulture
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. ... Appellants/Respondents in
all W.Ps
Vs.
S.P.Karuppaiah ... Respondent in W.A.(MD).951/18
/Writ petitioner
in W.P.(MD).No.
10694/17
Palanivelu ... Respondent in W.A.(MD).952/18
/Writ petitioner
in W.P.(MD).No.10697/17
M.Maruthai ... Respondent in W.A.(MD).953/18
/Writ petitioner
in W.P.(MD).No.1725/2018
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act
to set aside the orders dated 02.03.2018 passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.10694 and
10697 of 2017 and 1725 of 2018.
!For Appellants in all Appeals: Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian
Special. Govt. Pleader
^For Respondent :
:COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by HULUVADI G.RAMESH,J.) These writ appeals have been filed to set aside the orders dated 02.03.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.10694 and 10697 of 2017 and 1725 of 2018.
2.While disposing of the above writ petitions, the learned Single Judge has extended the date of superannuation of the petitioners therein, who are Farm Labourers upto 60 years.
3.The State has preferred these appeals stating that due to technical reasons, the learned Singe Judge has allowed the said writ petitions. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that when there is a specific rule applicable to the service of the writ petitioners, general rule cannot be made applicable. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
4.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that for want of counter only, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. However, a parallel Bench has suggested the Government to withdraw the writ appeal, as per the service rules and also the retirement conditions, as provided by the Government.
5.In view of the matter, the appellants are granted liberty to file a review petition and also permitted to withdraw the writ appeals.
6.Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has made an endorsement in the grounds of writ appeal.
7.Recording the same, these writ appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
.