SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ker) 74

Judges : THOMAS
C.J.JOSEPH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 5905 of 1986
Decided On : 02/18/1987
Advocates Appeared :
K. Sudhakaran; B. Reghunathan; For Petitioner M.B. Kurup; For Respondent

The compulsory retirement order under R.60A must not cast aspersions or attach a stigma to the employee, as it would amount to dismissal from service and trigger the protections guaranteed under Art.311 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

Compulsory Retirement - Government Service - Kerala Service Rules - R.60A

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Additional Secretary to the Government of Kerala, was compulsorily retired from government service at the age of 53, two years before the retirement age of 55. The retirement was challenged on the grounds of being discriminatory, mala fide, and circumventing constitutional guarantees under Art.311.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compulsory retirement order amounted to dismissal from service as it cast aspersions and attached a severe stigma to the petitioner, thus denying the protection guaranteed under Art.311 of the Constitution. The court allowed the Original Petition and quashed the compulsory retirement order.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and justification of the compulsory retirement order under R.60A of the Kerala Service Rules, allegations of discrimination, mala fides, and circumvention of constitutional guarantees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the tests laid down in previous decisions to determine that the compulsory retirement order amounted to dismissal from service, as it cast aspersions and attached a severe stigma to the petitioner, thus denying the protection guaranteed under Art.311 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Original Petition and quashed the compulsory retirement order, rendering the subsequent dismissal order also legally ineffective.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner was Additional Secretary to Government of Kerala in the Election Department. As per Ext. P5 order dated 9-8-1985, the Government compulsorily retired him from Government Service. He was then aged 53 years. The retirement age of the employees under the Kerala Government Service is 55 years. But for Ext. P5, the petitioner could have continued in service till 28-2-1987. The Government passed an order under R.60A of Part.1 of the Kerala Service Rules. The petitioner challenged Ext. P.5 in O. P. No. 9192/85, but that Original Petition was disposed of directing the Government to take a decision on the application for review which, the petitioner offered to file before the Government. Though the petitioner filed such an application for review, the government dismissed it by Ext. P10 order dated 23-7-1986. So, this Original Petition is mainly for quashing Exts. P5 and P10. Incidental reliefs are also prayed for.

2. There was a strike by a section of the Government employees in Kerala State from 7-8-1985 onwards. The Kerala Secretariat Employees' Association, of which the petitioner is a member, also joined the strike. The Government took some measures to deal with the strike. One of them was to declare some of the services as "Essential Services". Secretariat service was not, however, declared as an "Essential Service".

Another measure adopted was to impose a restriction that leave of any kind should not be granted to Government employees including Gazetted Officers during the period of the strike, except on the ground of unavoidable reasons. The unauthorised absence of the employees for participation in the strike was to be treated as 'dies-non', under R.14-A Part.1 of the Kerala Service Rules. Ext. P1 is the order issued by the Government containing instructions to the various Heads of Departments as to the measures to be adopted in dealing with the strike. During the strike period, the petitioner absented himself from office. The Chief Secretary of the Government of Kerala addressed a demi-official letter to the petitioner on 8-8-1985 pointing out that being a senior officer of the rank of Head of the Department, the petitioner should have, in public interest and with a sense of responsibility, attended the office at a time when a section of Government employees have gone on strike. The petitioner was hence asked to report for duty nest day and at the same time, he was told that if he fails to do so, "the Government will be constrained to take appropriate disciplinary action" against him. It appears that the petitioner was the founder President of the Secretariat Employees' Association and he continued to be its member during the relevant time. The demi-official letter sent by the Chief Secretary did not evoke any positive response in the petitioner who, in his reply expressed inability to abide by the instructions as "he was bound to act in accordance with the instructions of the Association of which, he was a founder member." The reply of the petitioner was unsatisfactory to the Government and thereupon the Government passed Ext. P5 order on 9-8-1985 itself. The first paragraph of Ext. P5 refers to the background and in other paragraphs, the reasons and actions are mentioned. Those latter paragraphs are extracted below:

"2. The unauthorised absence of a senior officer like Sri. Joseph and his refusal to report for duty amounts to grave dereliction of duty and a lack of sense of responsibility and has adversely affected public interest.

3. Sri: C.I. Joseph Additional Secretary to Government has attained the age of 53 years. R.60A of Part.1 of Kerala Service Rules confers power on the Government to compulsorily retire in public interest any officer after be has attained the age of 48 years. The Govt., are satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest that Sri. C.J. Joseph shall be compulsorily retired from service

3. In the exercise of the powers conferred by R.60A of Part.1 of the Kerala Service R















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top