The common question, which arises for decision in these Writ Petitions is whether a Rule made by Hon. the Chief Justice of Kerala, enhancing the retirement age of the employees of the High Court is valid or not, in the absence of approval of the Governor. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The petitioners in this Writ Petition are employees of the High Court. They attained the age of 55 years, on various dates after 01.01.2007. The retirement age under the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970, which was in force upto 31.12.2006, was 55 years. But, as per Rule 37(1) of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007, the age of retirement of the employees is 58 years with effect from 01.01.2007. Therefore, they are allowed to continue in service. But, when their salary bills were presented, they were not honoured by the Treasury Officer. The Government refused to issue instructions to the Accountant General and the Treasury Officer for honouring the bills and therefore, the petitioners are not able to draw their salary. So, they were constrained to approach this Court.

3. Ext.P1 is the relevant portion of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2007. By Ext.P2, the Registrar of the High Court, on 17.01.2007, forwarded a copy of the said Rules to the Government, for its information and also for issuing necessary orders to the Accountant General to act according to the new Rules. But, when Ext.P3 salary bill of the 1st petitioner was presented, the Sub Treasury Officer returned the same by recording an objection that she retired from service as on 31.05.2007. Thereupon the Registrar of the High Court addressed Ext.P4 communication dated 07.06.2007 to the Accountant General of Kerala, pointing out that the age of superannuation of the members of the High Court Service has been enhanced to 58 and therefore, the first petitioner will retire only in 2010. So, the Accountant General was requested not to process her pensionary claim. It appears, the Accountant General has informed of this communication to the Government and the Government by Ext.P5 communication, which was received by the Registrar on 10.05.2007, requested the Registrar to clarify whether the age of retirement of the employees of the High Court has been enhanced and whether approval for the same has been obtained from the Governor or not. The Registrar replied by Ext.P6 communication dated 22.05.2007, stating that the new Rules were brought into force with effect from 01.01.2007, in which the age of superannuation of the employees is provided as 58. The Registrar also brought to the notice of the Government that this matter was informed to the Government by Ext.P2 communication dated 17.01.2007. Upon receipt of Ext.P6, the Government replied by Ext.P7 dated 12.06.2007, stating that the Government cannot accept the new Rule, as the same was not properly made. The approval of the Governor is necessary for making such a Rule. So, the High Court was requested by Ext.P7 to keep in abeyance the operation of the said Rule until the approval of the Governor as stipulated under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India is obtained.

4. The petitioners challenge Ext.P7. They seek a declaration that Ext.P1 Rules are validly made under Article 229(2) of the Constitution. They seek a further declaration that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 58 years, by virtue of Rule 37(1) of Ext.P1 Rules and are entitled to draw salary and allowances till their retirement, on attaining the age of 58. They also seek a declaration that the 1st respondent Government are bound to respect Ext.P1 and issue necessary directions to the Accountant General, Thiruvananthapuram and the Sub Treasury Officer, Ernakulam to disburse the salary due to them. According to them, subject to any provisions made by the Legislature of the State, Hon. the Chief Justice is authorised to prescribe