Losing A Job After Serving For More Than Ten Years Not Only Leads To Financial Loss But Also Triggers Identity Crisis: Madras HC
While stating that it would be appropriate for the Petitioners to approach the Supreme Court to direct the Respondent to allow them to continue in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with pay protection till the date of their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, the Madras High Court held that present Petitioners and any persons above the age of 45, ought to be considered for continuing in service until their retirement with only time scale of pay without any retirement and terminal benefits.
The High Court, therefore, allowed the Petitioners to continue in service till the outcome of the results before the Supreme Court.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that “Losing a job, that too after serving for more than 10 years would be stressful in many ways and can impact several aspects of life. It not only leads to uncertainty, financial loss, job search stress but also impacts self-esteem negatively and in many cases trigger identity crisis. Such can be the impact that a person may feel uncomfortable mingling with other people, attending social events or even talking to their family members fearing judgment from them. Prolonged unemployment can even be more devastating as after remaining jobless for a considerable period of time, a person becomes hopeless, pessimistic and demotivated which over a period of time can affect their personality.”
Advocate M. Ravi appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Additional Advocate General R. Baskaran appeared for the Respondent.
In the background of the case, the Petitioners have registered their names in the Professional Executive Employment Exchange. During the year 2011, the Government appointed 843 Veterinary Assistant Surgeons through the same Employment Exchange in accordance with Rule 10 (a) (i) of the State Subordinate Service Rules. However, a common notification was issued calling candidates from the open market to participate in the competitive examination. The Petitioners challenged this before the Apex Court for suitable relief enabling regularization of service after obtaining concurrence from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. However, the Supreme Court declined to accept the said proposal. The Petitioners therefore came up with a new proposal that they ought to have been permitted to continue in the said post till their retirement and be eligible only for a time scale of pay without any terminal benefits. Considering the claim of Petitioners, the Government had filed a miscellaneous petition before the Supreme Court to regularize their services. However, the Supreme Court declined the proposal of the Government.
After considering the submission, the Bench stated that when the Supreme Court had issued a direction after considering the plight of the 573 candidates, there was no question of modifying the said direction issued by the Supreme Court on this issue.
“When the respondents have come out with a policy decision to grant 50 marks for the in-service candidates, now the petitioners would be in a better position compared to the youngsters from open market”, added the Bench.
Therefore, the Bench elucidated that the Petitioners would compete in the examination since granting the weightage of 50 marks if the in-service candidates were passed, would enable them to continue in the service.
The Bench referred to the submission that “Government may pay the salary alone (time scale of pay) and the said 20 writ petitioners would give up the retirement and terminal benefits. Since some of the petitioners are more than 50 years, at this age they cannot seek any public employment. They are having family to support, they have to support the elders, some of the writ petitioners’ children are studying. Moreover, if at this age they lose their job, it would have social stigma to the entire family”.
The Bench explained that this concession would be beneficial to the Government also since the Government would be benefited financially, as the said petitioners have given up their terminal and retirement benefits.
The High Court clarified that the said concession was attractive and any Court would grant such relief, provided if the litigation arose for the first time.
However, noticing that the earlier round of litigation went up to the Supreme Court and the Petitioners had lost, and they had the option to go before the Government may consider continuing such candidates till their retirement, the High Court observed that it would be appropriate to approach the Supreme Court for such direction.
Cause Title: Dr. V. Selvendran and Ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
Click here to read/download Order
