'For Publicity Purpose': Madras HC Imposes Rs 5K Costs, 2 Year Ban On Filing PILs For 'Misconceived' Challenge To Govt Retirement Age Policy

Aaratrika Bhaumik

30 Sep 2021 7:17 AM GMT

  • For Publicity Purpose: Madras HC Imposes Rs 5K Costs, 2 Year Ban On Filing PILs For Misconceived Challenge To Govt Retirement Age Policy

    The Madras High Court on Wednesday imposed costs to the tune of Rs 5000 on a petitioner who had who had challenged the State government's February 2021 decision to increase the retirement age for government officials to 60 years from the earlier 59 years. Additionally, the petitioner was also barred from filing any Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition for two years without obtaining...

    The Madras High Court on Wednesday imposed costs to the tune of Rs 5000 on a petitioner who had who had challenged the State government's February 2021 decision to increase the retirement age for government officials to 60 years from the earlier 59 years. Additionally, the petitioner was also barred from filing any Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition for two years without obtaining the previous leave of the Court. 

    A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu remarked at the outset, 

    "The petition is utterly misconceived and filed only for publicity purposes"

    The petitioner had contended before the Court that since unemployment is on the rise, increasing the retirement age would be detrimental to those who are seeking government jobs. 

    However, the Court refused to entertain such a plea by noting that the petition was 'bare bodied' and bereft of any details or material let alone any figures which would demonstrate that the decision of the government is flawed.

    It was further opined that the Court is generally slow to interfere in matters of policy since that is the prerogative of the government. The Court also noted that a similar petition had been recently dismissed by another Bench of the High Court by a 'terse order' in the case of R.Gopinath v. State of Tamil Nadu while observing that it is a matter of government policy.

    Accordingly, the Court proceeded to impose costs of Rs 5,000 to be paid within two weeks to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority (TNSLA) for making 'a spectacle of the matter'. 

    "Additionally, the petitioner will not be entitled to bring any public interest litigation in this Court for a period of two years without obtaining previous express leave of the court in such regard," the Court added while dismissing the petition. 

    Case Title: R Balamuralidharan v. Union of India and Ors

    Click Here To Read/Download Order 


    Next Story