IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12917 of 2009(H)
1. P.P. PRASANNA, W/O. O. RAVEENDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/05/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.12917 of 2009-H
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has been working as Joint Manager in the Kerala State
Warehousing Corporation. She has attained the age of superannuation on
30.4.2009. The main relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction
to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to continue in service till
31.3.2010. The claim for enhancement of the retirement age, according to
the petitioner, is supported by Ext.P1 Govt. Order.
2. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent
Corporation and the learned Govt. Pleader for the State of Kerala. It is
pointed out by the respondents that age of superannuation of the personnel
working in the Warehousing Corporation is 58 and the Govt. Order
regarding extension of the period of retirement will apply only in a case
where the retirement age is 55. The Government as per G.O.(P)
No.158/2009/Fin. dated 30.4.2009 has made the position clear. Even though
the extended period of service of Government employees and teachers have
been made applicable to employees of public sector undertakings,
autonomous bodies, Universities, etc., it is clear from the Government Order
wpc 12917/2009 2
that the extension sought for is only respect of Government employees and
teachers and others who attain the age of 55 years during the course of the
financial year and therefore cases like the present one wherein the
retirement age is 58, is not governed by various other Government Orders.
Apart from the above, the writ petitioner has not claimed any other
independent right to have extension of the retirement age from 58, till the
end of the financial year.
Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/