High Court Kerala High Court

More Than 50 Parties vs State Of Kerala on 22 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
More Than 50 Parties vs State Of Kerala on 22 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22236 of 2005(V)


1. MORE THAN 50 PARTIES.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. THE KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :22/08/2007

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                  ===============
               W.P.(C) NO. 22236 OF 2005
              ====================

          Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007

                       J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed by the employees of

the 3rd respondent, seeking to quash Exhibits P8, P10 and

P12 and to declare that the rejection of approval by the first

respondent for enhancing the age of superannuation to be

illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners are also seeking

consequential reliefs.

2. On facts, it is seen that presently, the age of

superannuation of the employees of the Corporation is 55

years. Enhancement of the age of retirement from 55 to 60

was a long pending demand of the union, which was

ultimately placed before the Board of Directors of the 3rd

respondent for its consideration. In the meeting of the

Board of Directors held on 14/5/98, after considering the

various aspects of the matter, the Board resolved to raise

WPC 22236/05
: 2 :

the age of retirement of the employees from the existing 55

years to 60 years subject to approval of the Government

and to make suitable amendment to the Service Rules. It

was taken up with the Government and the same was

rejected by Ext.P8. Although the corporation took up the

matter again with the Government, the Government

rejected the requests as per Exhibits P10 and P12. It is in

the aforesaid background, this writ petition has been filed by

the petitioners.

3. This Court had occasion to consider a similar case

in the case of Kavirajan v. KSBC Ltd (2007(2) KLT 917)

concerning the employees of Kerala State Beverages

Corporation Ltd. Considering the entire facts including the

enhancement of age of retirement granted in respect of

other Public Sector Undertakings of the Government of

Kerala, this Court held that the regular employees of the

Kerala State Beverages Corporation are entitled to continue

WPC 22236/05
: 3 :

till the age of 58 as decided by the Board of Directors of the

corporation and the rejection of the request in this behalf by

the Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India. The ratio of the said decision applies fully to the

facts of this case and applying the same, I quash Exhibits

P8, P10 and P12 and I hold that the regular employees of

the 3rd respondent will be entitled to continue in service till

60 years as resolved by the Board of Directors in their

meeting held on 14/5/98.

4. In this case an interim order was passed on

30/11/05 that the retirement of the petitioners 2 to 83 will

be subject to the result of the writ petition. In view of the

said order, it is directed that if any one of the petitioners

have retired after the filing of this writ petition, they shall be

reinducted and allowed to continue till they attain the age of

60 years. It is also clarified that the benefit of this

judgment will apply to all employees of the 3rd respondent,

WPC 22236/05
: 4 :

who are in service as on today, but the limited

retrospectivity given, will apply only to the writ petitioners

in this case. It is also clarified that in the case of persons

who may be reinstated pursuant to this judgment and

those retired and attained 60 years, will not be entitled to

get salary for the period they were out of service and have

not actually worked.

With the above observations, the writ petition is

disposed of.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp