High Court Kerala High Court

K. Pankajakshnan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 15 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
K. Pankajakshnan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 15 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 36864 of 2003(L)


1. K. PANKAJAKSHNAN, LABELLING WORKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE

3. COMPANY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE

4. THE MANAGER, BONDED WARE HOUSE

                For Petitioner  :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :15/03/2007

 O R D E R
                 J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

                 -------------------------------------

           W.P.(C)Nos.36864, 39147 of 2003, 34088 of 2004,

           6781, 16434, 19904, 24160, 24196, 24779, 25888,

        26721, 28857, 29683, 29851, 29976, 30534 of 2005,

        14516, 15337, 22757 of 2006, 1589 & 2787 OF 2007

                 -------------------------------------

                          Dated 15th March, 2007



                                   JUDGMENT

Koshy,J
.

All these writ petitions are filed by the employees

of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter

referred to as the Corporation) for enhancing the age of

superannuation. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd. is a

Company registered under the Companies Act and it is fully

owned by the Government of Kerala. As per the Articles of

Association, service conditions of the employees including

retirement age can be changed only with the permission of the

Government. Management and administration of the company is

done by the Board of Directors of the company. Decisions of

the board are not generally interfered by the Government

unless it is against the policy of the Government or against

the interest of the Government. Board of Directors of the

company unanimously decided to increase the retirement age to

58 subject to consonance of the Government. But, the

Government of Kerala refused to concur with the decision of

the Board of Directors by order dated 02.7.2005 (produced as

Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.15337 of 2006) on the ground that

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 2

Government policy is against increasing the age of

superannuation to 58 from the age of 55. This order is

challenged in all these writ petitions.

2. There are 113 public sector undertakings owned

by the Kerala Government out of which in seven undertakings

like Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. etc. the

retirement age of employees is 60 years. In majority of

the undertakings, now the retirement age is 58 years. In

Public sector undertakings of Central Government in State

of Kerala the age of superannuation is 60. In Travancore

Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., one of the Kerala Government

company, the age of retirement is 60 and it is a sick

industry. The Board of Directors decided to reduce the age

to 58 as it is a sick industry, but, Government decided to

roll back the retirement age to 60 years itself as can be

seen from Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.15337 of 2006 dated

24.6.2006. However, even though in five companies the

retirement age is 55 years, in majority of the public

sector undertakings owned by the Kerala Government, the

retirement age is 58. The retirement age of the Government

employees in Kerala is only 55, but, Government employees

have got various chances of promotion and they are entitled

to get Government pension. Even though in five of the

Government Companies the age of retirement is 55, the major

Government Companies where retirement age is fixed as 55

are four in number viz., Kerala State Road Transport

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 3

Corporation, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kerala Water

Authority and Kerala State Housing Board. In those

undertakings there is a good pension scheme. But, as far

as Kerala State Beverages Corporation is concerned, there

is no pension scheme. Of course, they will be entitled to

some sort of contributory pension because of the pension

scheme under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme.

But, for entitlement of full pension, they have to attain

the age of 58. In another similarly placed public sector

undertaking (LBS Centre), Directors decided to extend the

age of retirement from 55 to 58 so as to get the pension

from EPF pension scheme. Ext.P4 is produced to prove the

same. In paragraph 1 of Ext.P4 it is stated as follows:

“The Director, LBS Centre for Science

and Technology has reported that the centre

is following the EPF pension scheme and as

per the EPR pension scheme 1995 a member is

eligible for Superannuation after attaining

the age of 58 years. Hence the Governning

Body of the centre at its 19th meeting held

on 22.10.2001 had decided to fix the

retirement age of its members at 58 years.”

The Government approved the above decision. There is no

need to discriminate Beverages Corporation employees.

3. In 90% of the Government companies, where

there is no pension scheme like Government, age of

retirement was increased to 58 and in some Government

companies retirement age is 60. Hence it cannot be

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 4

contended that policy of the Government is not to increase

the retirement age to 58. This Corporation is one of the

few Government companies which earns profits and no grounds

are stated in Ext.P3 indiscriminating this corporation from

other Government companies on the ground of policy.

Petitioners have to be treated at par with other Government

employees especially when Board of Directors decided so

considering the fact of absence of pension scheme etc..

4. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the

employees were allowed to continue up to the age of 58 by

various interim orders of this court. The whole question

is whether the Government Order in not approving the

resolution of the Beverages Corporation in increasing the

retirement age to 58 is arbitrary so as to get interference

from this court as it is violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. It is true that this court by its

own cannot direct the Government or Government Corporation

to increase the age of superannuation in a petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well

settled principle that Government employees’ age cannot be

increased by an order of the court. It is for the

Government to take a policy decision. Here, the entire

scenario is different. The respondent Corporation is a

profit making Corporation. Board of Directors decided to

increase the age of superannuation considering various

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 5

circumstances especially considering the fact that in

majority of the similarly placed public sector

undertakings, the age of retirement was adopted as 58 and

also considering the fact that even for getting

contributory pension under the Employees Provident Fund

Scheme, the employees have to attain the age of 58 and

majority employees of the Corporation, superannuation age

is 60 and 58 and the Board decided so, of course, subject

to the Government concurrence. The case of the petitioners

is that even in sick industries, the age of retirement is

60 in certain cases and 58 in majority cases unless there

is a separate beneficiary pension scheme. There is no

rhyme and reason for the Government to reject the

recommendation of the Board of Directors. In this

connection, we refer to the decision of the Supreme Court

in British Paints (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1966 SC 732)

where it was held by the Supreme Court as follows:

“But time in our opinion has

now come considering the Improvement in

the standard of health and increase in

longevity in this country during the last

fifty years that the age of retirement

should be fixed at a higher level, and we

consider that generally speaking in the

present circumstances fixing the age of

retirement at 60 years would be fair and

proper, unless there are special

circumstances justifying fixation of a

lower age of retirement.”

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 6

5. After considering reports of various

committees, the retirement age of Central Government

employees was enhanced to 60. The present conditions

cannot be lost sight of. The total number of employees

employed in the Corporation is about 2700 out of which 339

employees are regular workers, about 1500 workers are

abkari workers and about 650 employees are deputed from

other Corporations where retirement age is 58. These

deputationists are allowed to work in the Corporation on

deputation even beyond their age of 55 years up to 58

years. For getting pension under the Abkari Welfare

Scheme, abkari workers have to work up to the age of 60.

Government Pleader submitted that they have no objection in

extending the age of superannuation of the abkari workers

of Beverages Corporation to 60. The orders are passed and

Government decision is mentioned in the counter affidavit.

These abkari workers were also absorbed by the Corporation

when retail shops were nationalized. These abkari workers

are members of the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board which

has the superannuation age as 60 years. Hence the

permanent abkari workers who are employees of the

Corporation have their retirement age fixed as 60 years.

Hence, majority of employees in this Corporation itself can

work beyond 58 years whereas only minority of 339 regular

workers have to retire at the age of 55.

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 7

6. In this connection, we also refer to the

decision of the Apex Court in Osmania University v.

V.S.Muthurangam and others ((1997) 10 SCC 741). The

employees of the Corporation are members of Employees’

Provident Fund. In the Employees Provident Fund a separate

Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme has been introduced

effective from 1995. The pension fund scheme envisages

pension contribution by the employee/employer up to the age

of 58 years of an employee for the employee to get the full

benefit of pension under the scheme. Hence, the following

resolution was passed by the Corporation:

“Resolved to recommend to Government

the raising of retirement age in the

Corporation from 55 years to 58 years as is

followed in Public Sector Companies and

place proposals before the Government.

We request that the decision of the

Corporation’s Board of Directors to raise

the retirement age of the employees of KSBC

from 55 years to 58 years and incorporate

suitable amendment in clause 43 of the

Service Rules.”

7. When the abkari workers’ age is also increased

to 60 and the deputed workers are working up to 58, there

is no rhyme or reason to say that regular workers should be

retired at the age of 55. Even though they are not

entitled to the pension like the Government employees,

there is no reason for rejecting the proposal of the

W.P.(C)Nos. 36864/2003 & connection 8

Corporation in extending the age of superannuation up to 58

and that rejection is in violation of Article 14 of

Constitution of India. There is hostile discrimination

between similarly placed employees in other Corporations

and even the employees working in the same Corporation. We

hold that the regular employees of the Kerala State

Beverages Corporation are entitled to continue till the age

of 58 as decided by the Director Board of the Corporation

and rejection of the above request by Government is

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Of

course, as decided by the Government, abkari workers can

continue up to the age of 60 and we are not interfering

with the above order.

All the writ petitions are allowed to the above

extent.

J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGE

tks