Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HIMA KOHLI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Dr. Prakasan M.P. And others – APPELLANTS
Versus
State of Kerala And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7580 of 2012
Decided On : 25-08-2023
(A) Service Law – Retirement – Age – Age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within domain of State Government – It is not for courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from one applicable to Government employees under relevant service Rules and Regulations – Nor can Court insist that once State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend age of retirement of staff teaching in Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to Dental stream and Ayurvedic stream, said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective – These are all matters of policy that engage State Government – It may even elect to give benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees while denying said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc. (Para 11)
(B) Service Law – Retirement – Age – It is for State to take a call as to whether circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees or not – It must be assumed that State would have weighed all pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant extension of age – As for aspect of retrospectivity of such a decision, whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by State Government, some employees would always be left out in the cold – But that alone would not make decision bad; nor would it be a ground for Court to tread into matters of policy that are best left for State Government to decide – Appellants herein cannot claim a vested right to apply extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of enhancement in age ordered by State at a later date, they would be entitled to all benefits including monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April, 2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by service regulations – This is an exercise that is undertaken by State in discharge of its public duties and should not brook undue interference by Court – Impugned judgment upheld. (Paras 17, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Appellants, who are members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the respondent No.1 - State of Kerala, are aggrieved by judgement dated 6th August, 2010, passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, concurring with judgment dated 19th July, 2010, passed by Single Judge. The relief prayed for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order dated 14th January, 2010, which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. The prayer made was not granted.
Findings of Court:
The clock cannot be put back for them by reading retrospectivity in the G.O. dated 09th April, 2012, when State elected not to insert any such clause and evidently intended to apply it with prospective effect. Idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in affecting studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants, who are members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the respondent No.1 - State of Kerala1[For Short ‘the State’], are aggrieved by the judgement dated 6th August, 2010, passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam2[ In Writ Appeal No. 1338 of 2010], concurring with the judgement dated 19th July, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge3[In Writ Petition (Civil) 13537 of 2010]. The relief prayed for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order4[For short ‘G.O’] dated 14th January, 20105[G.O.(MS) No.14/2010/H&FWD], which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. The prayer made was not granted.
THE FACTS :
2. To put the issue raised in the instant case in the correct perspective, we may first refer to the relevant facts. The State issued a Government Order6[G.O. (MS) No. 14/2010/H&FWD] dated 14th January, 2010, recording inter-alia that there was a shortage of qualified and experienced medical faculties in several subjects in Government Medical Colleges in the State and that on account of the age of retirement of the faculty including medical doctors at 55 years, several departments were facing dearth of medical doctors which, was adversely affecting post graduate medical courses. Noting that at the National level, the retirement age of doctors in Medical Colleges was 65 years and retention of senior professors in service would help the State increase the number of post graduate seats as per the revised norms laid down by the Medical Council of India, the State ordered that :
“Government have examined the various aspects and pleased to order that the retirement age of the doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service be increased to 60 years from existing 55 years. This order has retrospective effect from 1.5.2009. This order is not applicable for faculties in Dental, Nursing, Pharmacy and Non-Medical categories under Medical Education Service.”
3. Aggrieved by the exclusion of doctors/professors of Government Homeopathic Colleges from the purview of the captioned G.O. dated 14th January, 2010, the appellants filed a writ petition7[Writ Petition (C) No.10709 of 2010] in the High Court of Kerala praying inter alia for extension of the benefit of the said G.O. to Homeopathic Doctors working in Government Homeopathic Colleges. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 29th March, 2010 with a direction issued to the State to consider the pending representations of the appellants and pass an order within three months. Since the State did not take any decision on their representations, the appellants approached the High Court once again and filed another writ petition3, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th July, 2010. Noting that the State Government did not amend Rule 60 (a) or 60 (c) Part (I) of the Kerala Service Rules8[For short ‘K.S. Rules’], the learned Single Judge held that the existing rule position as obtained from Rule 60(c) of the K.S. Rules, could not be ignored. It was also observed that the appellants had not challenged the G.O. dated 14th January, 2010. Instead, they approached the Court seeking parity with those covered under the said G.O., by claiming that it ought to be extended to them as well so as to enable them to continue in service beyond the normal date of retirement, which was impermissible.
4. Dissatisfied by the above judgement, the appellants filed an appeal2 which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Concurring with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench observed that since extension of age for the teaching staff of Medical Colleges is a policy decision, it is not open for the High Court to iss
(1) Age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within domain of State Government – It is not for courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from one applicable to Government employe....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
(1) Whether age of superannuation should be enhanced is a matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance age of superannuation, date with effect from which enhancement should be made falls....
increasing the age of superannuation only in the case of Professors, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as alleged, for the simple reason that whereas equals cannot be ....
The age of superannuation is a matter of executive policy, and courts should not interfere in such decisions unless they are shown to be ex facie arbitrary or perverse.
Autonomous institute employees not entitled to Ministry's superannuation age enhancement for direct AYUSH doctors.
The court emphasized that the applicability of government orders with retrospective effect and the re-appointment of superannuated individuals are within the executive domain and cannot be directed b....
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy matter for the State Government and is not automatically applicable to all educational institutions under its governance without amendments to respective....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
