BY AD vs V.A.MUHAMMED

approached this court in the present writ petition for the following prayers:- i) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to continue in service till attains the age of 60 years in the light of Exhibits P-1, P-7 and P-8. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue in service till he attains the age of 60 years. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to refrain from terminating the service of the Petitioner by 31.05.2024. WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 3 iv) to issue such other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. v) to dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced in the Writ Petition vi) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.

2.The Board of Director of the KFDC did not arrive at a decision to recommend the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years. However, the petitioner’s representation and deliberations of the Board were forwarded to the State Government for considering the enhancement of the age of retirement of the employees from 58 to 60 years.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in some of the public sector undertakings, the age of retirement has already been increased from 58 to 60 years. The KFDC is also one of such Government establishments and therefore, the age of retirement in the Corporation should also be increased from 58 to 60 years.

4.Ms. Kabani, appearing for the respondent Corporation, however, submits that the Board has not taken any decision to WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 4 recommend for enhancement of the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation from 58 to 60 years. Deliberations produced by the petitioner to the Board meeting would not disclose that consents/decisions/resolutions were passed for recommending the case of the employee of the Corporation for enhancing the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. She, therefore, submits that merely on the basis of the fact that the petitioner’s request along with the deliberations of the Board has been forwarded to the State Government for taking appropriate decision would not entitle the petitioner to maintain the writ petition as the petitioner does not have any statutory right under the relevant service rules or constitutional rights to remain in service after he attained the age of superannuation on 27.05.2024 as per the existing service rules.

5.Ms. Mary Beena Joseph, the learned Senior Government Pleader, however, submits that the Government has constituted an expert committee to consider the cases of the public sector undertakings for enhancing the age of retirement of their employees. The public sector undertakings/corporations are WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 5 required to submit a proposal for enhancing the age of retirement of their employees in the format prescribed, and thereafter, the Government a decision proposal/recommendation. It is further submitted that no such proposal has been forwarded by the Corporation for enhancing the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years and in the absence of any recommendations and resolutions of the Board, respondent Corporation, the Government has not considered the case of the Corporation for enhancing the age of retirement of its employees from 58 to 60 years.

6.The learned Senior Government Pleader has also contended that the petitioner’s age of retirement as per the service rules is 58 years and he had already retired on 31.05.2024. As and when the decision to enhance the retirement age is taken, same should be made applicable prospectively and it cannot be retro-active in its operation. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible legal right or constitutional right to continue in service beyond the age of retirement prescribed under the service rules. WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024

7. I have considered the submissions advanced. 6

8.The facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 27.05.2024. The service conditions of each Public sector undertaking / Corporation are different and governed under the relevant service rules of that corporation or the public sector undertakings. An employee of a Corporation / public sector undertaking cannot claim parity with the service condition of another corporation / public sector undertaking. Under the existing service rules of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation, the age of retirement is 58 years and there has been no change in the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years till date. If the Government takes the decision to enhance the age of retirement of the employees working in the Kerala Forest Development Corporation, such a decision only be prospective and cannot be retroactive in its operation. None of the petitioner’s statutory, legal or fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India is violated for which the petitioner can approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the petitioner may have hope and WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 7 legitimate expectation to get the age of retirement to enhance from 58 to 60 years but same would not be a legally actionable claim for the petitioner to come before this court and seek a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to retired the petitioner at the age of 60 years, going as per the existing rules, the petitioner has retired with effect from 31.05.2024. Thus, I find no substance in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. All the pending interlocutory applications in this writ petition are closed. SJ Sd/- D. K. SINGH JUDGE WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16571/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 Exhibit P-2 Exhibit P-3 Exhibit P-4 Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.131/2022/FIN DATED 29.10.2022 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.135/2022/FIN DATED 04/11/2022 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DATED 17.10.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD ON 28.10.2023 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER ADDRESSING THE PETITIONER VIDE NO.E1-4076/23 DATED 12/12/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16.12.2023 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER ADDRESSING PETITIONER DATED 11.01.2024 Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24.01.2024 Exhibit P-6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.88/2023/ID DATED 21.12.2023 Exhibit P-7 Exhibit P-8 Exhibit P-9 Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29.02.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KFDC ADDRESSING THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DATED 05.04.2024 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.KSCC/GM/RTI2023-24/37 DATED 30.09.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.LEGAL/R3/RTI/40/2023-24 DATED 05.10.2023 Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 Exhibit P-12 Exhibit P-13 Exhibit P-14 Exhibit P-15 Exhibit P-16 Exhibit P-17 Exhibit P-18 Exhibit P-19 Exhibit P-20 Exhibit P-21 9 PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.CDC/PRI/RTI ACT 2005/2023 DATED 05.10.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.MDL/RTI/2022-23/3 DATED 23.08.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.TSCL/RTI/2023-24/11 DATED 23.09.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.A1/566/310 DATED 11.10.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.RTI-II/08/2023-33 DATED 18.09.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.AFC/9(2)/ADMIN/206 DATED 13/10/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER IN THAT BEHALF UNDER RTI VIDE NO.A1/556/271 DATED 07.09.2023 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.15/2011/FOREST DATED 01.03.2011 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.)NO.21/2021/LABOUR DATED 18/02/2021 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS.)NO.119/2010/TD DATED 06.05.2010 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2007 (2) KHC 389 (R.KAVIJARAN AND OTHERS V. KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M&M) CORPN LTD AND OTHERS) DATED 15.03.2007 Exhibit P-22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.2300/2007 DATED 15.03.2011 Exhibit P-23 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC WP(C) NO. 16571 OF 2024 10 NO.9460/2007 DATED 28.03.2007 (ALONG WITH TYPED COPY) Exhibit P-24 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.9460/2007 DATED 18.07.2007 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2 (1) PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-20 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE PROPOSAL FOR ENHANCEMENT OF RETIREMENT AGE OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION DATED.8.10.2024 (ALONG WITH TRANSLATION) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. F2/129/2024/FOREST DATED 08.10.2024 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, ADDRESSING THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ALONG WITH TRANSLATION Exhibit P-20 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 4/2024/NORKA DATED 12.12.2024 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION