Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Jyothish Kumar V – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
The issue in all these writ appeals pertains to the expected policy decision of the Government to enhance the retirement age of the employees of various Public Sector Undertakings (‘PSU’s in short) in Kerala, and the legality of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge by way of final judgments as well as by way of interim orders, allowing the petitioners in the writ petitions to continue in the posts where they are presently working, till such a decision is being taken by the Government on the basis of a report to be submitted by the expert committee appointed to study the feasibility of such enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60.
2. The appellants in W.A Nos.1445, 1478 and 1841 of 2024 are the respondent 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) Nos.2357, 11951 and 31507 of 2024 respectively. The petitioners in those write petitions are employees of the Kerala Livestock Development Board (‘KLD Board’, in short). The appellants in W.A No.1790 of 2024 are the respondent 1 to 3 in W.P.(C)No.10816 of 2024. The petitioners in that writ petition are employees of Kerala Feeds Ltd. The appellants in W.A. No.1792 of 2024 are third parties to W.P.(C)No.2357 of 2024, w
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, and employees cannot claim a right to continue in service pending such a decision.
The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, not a right of employees, and cannot be mandated by the court.
whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall n....
(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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, which enhanced the age of superannuation of Government Employees from 60 years to 62 years, t....
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used ....
Changes to retirement age rules are prospective and cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.
The determination of superannuation age is a policy decision of the government, requiring its approval for amendments, and courts cannot intervene without legal authority.
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
