Kerala High Court
S.Vijayan Nair vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 15 November, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935
WA.No. 1804 of 2011 ( )
------------------------
JUDGMENT IN WP(C).24053/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 15-11-2010
APPELLANT/9TH PETITIONER:
----------------------------------------------
S.VIJAYAN NAIR
S/O.LATE SANKARAN KUTTY PILLA, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT
REVATHI-II, VENCHAVODE, SREEKARIYAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.SARAT
SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011,
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR.
*3. K.VISWANATHAN,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*4. G.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*5. A.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*6. V.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
W.A.1804/2011 - 2 -
*7. KRISHNANKUTTY A.,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*8. VIKRAMANCHETTUR B.,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*9. M.AJITHKUMAR,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*10. R.SUKUMARAN NAIR,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*11. AJITHKUMAR S.K.,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*12. R.JAYACHANDRAN NAIR,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*13. T.S.JAYACHANDRAN NAIR,
SECURITY GUARD, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. (DELETED)
*R3 TO R13 ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY
AS PER ORDER DATED 06.03.2012 IN IA.172/2012.
R1 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.1804/2011
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXTS.:
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF GOVT. ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.347/2012/H&FW DATED
19.10.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS.: NIL.
Srd (True copy) P.S. To Judge.
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1804 of 2011
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2013 Judgment Manjula Chellur, C.J.
The appellant is an Ex-serviceman. He joined as a Security Guard on daily wages in the Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum. He filed the Writ Petition for regularisation of his service and for direction to increase the retirement age based on Government Order providing for uniformity in service conditions and pay structure. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition after discussing the relevant stands taken by the parties, ultimately saying, it is a policy decision of the authority which would decide the retirement age of the staff. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.
2. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, according to the appellant, in 2010 his service is regularised. Therefore, he restricts his prayer to second relief, i.e., increase in retirement age from 58 to 60. Learned counsel further submits, subsequent to the filing of the Writ Appeal, the respondent-authorities have taken a decision to increase the retirement age from a future date. The said decision of the respondent-authorities would not W.A.No.1804/11 2 assist the appellant and therefore, he seeks for a direction to direct the respondents to consider his case for extension of retirement age.
3. It is not in dispute that so far as fixing retirement age of an employee, it is the prerogative of the employer. Especially when he is working in an autonomous body, the decision of retirement age would depend upon the policy of the Board which runs the management of the respondent-Establishment. If the Board has decided that the retirement age would be 60 years from a particular future date, we fail to understand how such benefit could be extended to a person who retired in 2011. We find no good ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge and even otherwise we cannot direct the respondent-authorities to extend the benefit to the appellant also who retired way back in 2011. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
srd W.A.No.1804/11 3