IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36144 of 2008(C)
1. T.R.RAJAN, THEKKEVELUTHEDATH HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. M.K.ANANDAVALLY,
3. M.K.SUKUMARAN, MAILAM, KAVALAYIL HOUSE
4. P.M.AMINABEE, EAST COTTAPARAMBU,
5. A.JAYANANDAN, ALAKKOTTU HOUSE,PO., CHELL
6. T.K.SULOJANA, KORANIVAUALIL, PO.EDAKKADU
7. I.DEVI, AMAYADATH VEEDU PO.,
8. O.RADHAKRISHNAN, MANAKKATTU HOUSE
9. K.P.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI,
10. K.P.SADANANDAN,
11. V.GANGADEVI,VARIPPARAMBIL VEEDU,
12. C.SHYLAJA, CHEMBAKKOTTU VEEDU
13. P.VALSALA, POONADATH VEEDU,
14. P.RAJAN, PARADISE HOUSE,PO.MAVOOR,
15. A.P.ABDU RAHIMAN,ADAKKOREPPOTTAMAL
16. KELUKKUTTY.A.C., ARECHOLAYIL HOUSE
17. K.PRAKASAN, KOLLADATH VEEDU
18. P.P.LATHA, PANDINHARY VEETTIL,
19. ARAVINDAKSHA KURUP.K., MARAKKATTUPURATH
20. S.RADHA, KOTTECHALIL VEEDU PO., PAIMBRA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :14/01/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 36144 of 2008-C
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The apparent grievance raised by the petitioners is that the retirement
age fixed now as 55 years, requires to be modified as 60 years. The
petitioners are employees of the Health Department. According to them, as
per Exts.P1 to P3 seeking for enhancement of the retirement age, they
approached the Government.
2. The point raised by the petitioners is covered by the decisions of
this court and of the Apex Court. In Kerala Gazetted Officers Front and
others v. State of Kerala (1987 (1) KLT 336), Sivaraman Nair, J.
elaborately considered the position relating to Rule 60(a) of Part I K.S.R.
and it was held that it is entirely a policy decision to be taken by the
Executive. It was also held that merely because of the fact that for different
services, different ages of retirement should have been prescribed is no
reason why such fixation of the age of superannuation in the case of
Government employees as 55 years, shall be held to be unreasonable or
arbitrary. In para 9 it was held thus:
“It is evident that it has not been held so far that fixation of 55 years
2
as the age of superannuation for Government employees is
unreasonable and arbitrary in any of the decisions. ……… How far
the complex problem of unemployment could be tackled effectively
and what other methods can be adopted to do better are all matters
of policy and expediency for the State Government………….. Choice
out of such reasonable policy alternative is not for the Courts, it is
for the executive.”
I respectfully follow the above dictum laid down by this court.
Therefore, the writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/