The enhancement of retirement age is a policy decision of the government, not a right of employees, and cannot be mandated by the court.

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 arerespondents 1 to 3in W.P.(C) Nos.2357, 11951 and 31507 of 2024 respectively. The petitioners in those write petitionsare employees of the Kerala Livestock Development Board (‘KLD Board’, in short). The appellants in W.A No.1790 of 2024 are respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C)No.10816 of 2024. The petitioners in that writ petitionare 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, who are also employees of the KLD Board. As per the final judgments dated 28.02.2024 and 11.04.2014 passed in respective Writ petitions Nos.2357 and 11951 of 2024, the learned Single Judge directed the 1^st respondent State of Kerala to direct the expert committee constituted to study the feasibility of enhancement of the retirement age of the employees of PSUs in Kerala from 58 to 60 years and submit a report within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioners-employees were allowed to continue in the post where they are working, with a rider that they would be entitled to draw only the same wage at their risk and their continuation in the post would be in accordance with the recommendation of the expert committee and the orders passed by the 1^st respondent State. In W.P.(C) No.31507 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.10816 of 2024, the learned Single Judge passed interim orders permitting the petitioners therein to continue in service till such final decision is being taken by the 1^st respondent State of Kerala. Being aggrieved by the permission granted to continue in the post by the employees till the final decision is taken by the Government, the 1^st respondent State of Kerala preferred W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790 and 1841 of 2024. The employees who are about to be promoted on the retirement of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.2357 of 2024 filed W.A. No.1792 of 2024.

3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State, the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.1792 of 2024, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent in W.A. No.1445 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 7 in W.A. No.1790 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent 2 and 3 in W.A. No.1445 of 2024 and for respondents 8 and 9 in W.A. No.1792 of 2024 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 in W.A. No.1790 of 2024.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the age of superannuation is a matter of policy decision of the Government and till a decision is taken in that regard, an employee cannot claim it as a matter of right. As per Ext.P5 order dated 04.11.2022, based on the decision of the cabinet, the Government stopped the implementation of the recommendation of the report filed by the previous expert committee regarding the retirement age of employees in PSUs in Kerala and it was decided to conduct a study on a case-to-case basis of each PSUs. As per Ext.P6 order dated 19.04.2023, the Go