Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1374
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
Shaik Davood S/o Shaik Ali - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Kerala - Respondent
WA NO. 771 OF 2025
Decided On : 22-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.T.MUHAMOOD, ANSALAM N.X., A.RENJIT, GOKUL R.NAIR, VENUGOPAL C.
For the Respondent: STATE OF KERALA
The court upheld that contractual terms govern employment duration, affirming termination at the age of 56 as per the agreement and Kerala Service Rules.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Service Rules - Contractual Employment - The petitioner sought to quash the termination of his contract upon reaching the age of 56, arguing entitlement to continue until project completion. The court upheld the decision, affirming that the contract stipulated termination upon reaching the age limit. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 7)
(B) Contractual Terms - The court emphasized that the terms of the contract govern employment duration, and the petitioner’s claim of entitlement to remain until project completion was rejected as unsupported by the agreement. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Legal Precedent - The court noted that reliance on prior judgments was misplaced due to changed circumstances and reaffirmed that contractual terms dictate employment conditions. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was employed under a contract with the Kerala State Poverty Eradication Mission, which was terminated upon reaching the age of 56, the retirement age for drivers. The petitioner contested this decision, claiming he should remain until the project concluded.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error in the decision to terminate the petitioner’s contract at the age of 56, as per the terms of the agreement and the Kerala Service Rules.
Issues: The main issues included the interpretation of the contract regarding employment duration and the applicability of the retirement age.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the contract clearly stipulated termination upon reaching the age limit and that the petitioner’s interpretation of the agreement was incorrect.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
The appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 04-04-2025 in W.P.(C) No.44581 of 2024 of the learned Single Judge. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C) and respondents were the respondents therein. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the W.P.(C).
2. The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P4 and for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service of the 2nd respondent viz., the Kerala State Poverty Eradication Mission (Kudumbashree), till the attainment of the age of 58 years or till cessation of the project. By Ext.P4, the 1st respondent had informed the 3rd respondent that since the appointment of Kudumbashree employees is on a contract basis under Rule 9 of the KS & SSR and since the service of contract employees is to be terminated on completion of contract period, it was not possible to extend the term of the contract employees in accordance with the retirement age of regular employees. The request made to extend the service duration of the contract employees of Kudumbashree was thus declined.
3. The learned Single Judge had in the impugned judgment, after taking note of the fact that the petitioner's engagement had not been renewed after he completed 56 years of age, which is the age limit prescribed by the Government for drivers, concluded that the petitioner was employed on contractual basis and the terms and conditions of contract does not stipulate that the petitioner shall continue till the project of Mission gets completed. There are three eventualities mentioned in clause 1 for termination of the contract and completion of the project is one among them. Since the respondent had decided not to continue the petitioner after he had attained the age of 56 years, the same being the age of retirement for the Government drivers and such decision was in terms of the agreement, the learned Judge concluded that there is no error of law in taking such a decision as seen in Ext.P4. Holding thus, the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner impugns the same in this appeal.
4. Heard Sri.Muhamood T.T., Advocate for the appellant (petitioner) and Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Ext.P5 judgment, rendered by a Single Bench of this Court and strenuously contended that the petitioner does not fall into any of the three categories mentioned in clause 3.1 of Ext.P2 which enumerates the manner in which the services of an employee can be terminated and that since in clause 1 of the agreement, it has been stated that petitioner and similarly placed persons will work till they remains in service or till the winding up of the Mission, whichever is earlier, the same can only mean that the petitioner will be construed to be in service until they are terminated as per clause 3.1 or till the Mission is wound up as per the law. The age of the retirement as per the KSR cannot have any relevance in view of the said specific contractual position.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the purported reliance placed on the dictum in Ext.P5 judgment to contend that the petitioner should be engaged till the project got completed is devoid of sustainability in view of the change in circumstances. The said fact had engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge as is revealed from para 5 of the impugned judgment, wherein it had been noted that the State Government had rejected the request forwarded by the Mission for extending the employment of the employees working under the Mission up to 60 years on the ground that the employees working under the Mission are contractual employees and their terms of engagement shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of employment. Reliance is also placed on clause 14 of Ext.P2 agreement, which states as follo
