Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.
A. Sathyan, S/o. C. Ayyappan - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Ayush Department, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 991 of 2025
Decided On : 21-05-2025
For the Appellant : T.C. Krishna.
For the Respondent: Smt. Mable C. Kurian, SR. GP.
Daily wage employees under Hospital Development Society lack an indefeasible right to continue employment until age 65; discretion lies with the hospital authority.
Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ appeal challenging single judge's order regarding retirement age of daily wage employees under the Hospital Development Society - Court finds no indefeasible right for daily wage employees to continue till age 65, as discretion lies with hospital authorities. (Paras 4, 9, 14)
(B) Writ of mandamus - Legal right required - A writ can be granted to compel performance of statutory duty only when there is a legal right to ask for it. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a daily wage Security Guard under Hospital Development Society, challenged the rejection of his request for extension of retirement age to 65 years, citing discrimination against similarly placed employees in the Health Department.
Findings of Court:
The appellant does not possess an indefeasible right to employment until age 65 under the relevant government order, as that discretion is reserved for the hospital authorities.
Issues: The pivotal issues were the appellant's entitlement to claim an age extension based on government orders and whether the denial amounted to discrimination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the relevant government order does not confer an automatic right to continue employment up to age 65, emphasizing the necessity for a legal right to seek a writ of mandamus.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for age increase. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. single judge's ruling on no indefeasible right. (Para 4) |
| 3. need for review of single judge's decision. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments regarding employment and age limits. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. discretion of hospital authorities in employment age. (Para 9 , 10 , 13) |
| 6. writ of mandamus and its legal basis. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. conclusion of dismissal of writ appeal. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
M.B. Snehalatha, J.
This Writ Appeal under Section 5(i) of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958 is directed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2005 in W.P(C) No.18190 of 2024.
2. The appellant-petitioner herein filed the Writ Petition (C) No.18190 of 2024 invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Ext.P7 Government order dated 8.5.2024 on the ground that the said order was issued by the 1st respondent State without considering Ext.P2 to P4, as directed in Ext.P6 judgment dated 15.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No.6337 of 2024 and to declare that daily wage employees under the Hospital Development Society (HDS) in the hospitals under the 2nd respondent Director of Homeopathy, including the appellant- petitioner are eligible and entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation from 56 years to the age of 65 years, as granted to their counterparts in the Health and Family Welfare Department, vide Ext.P2 Government order dated 02.08.2018 and to declare that appellant-petitioner is eligible to continue till the completion of age of 65 years or in the alternative upto the age of 60 years in accordance with Rule 60(b) of Part III of the KERALA SERVICE RULES (KSR). The appellant-petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation dated 6.2.2024 made by him within a time frame.
3. Appellant's-petitioner's case in the writ petition was that he is an ex-service man who was working as a Security Guard on daily wages under the HDS at the Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and he is continuing as such from 20.4.2012 onwards. He is due to retire on attaining the age of 56 years, on 31.3.2024. By the order dated 30.1.2015, the age limit of the daily wage employees under the HDS in the Government Ayurveda College Hospital was enhanced to 60 years, based on the decision in the General Body held on 14.01.2015. But subsequently, the said order was cancelled by the 1st respondent State, vide Government order dated 08.09.2016. On the formulation of AYUSH department, Ayurveda came under the said department. Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 02.08.2018 enhancing the age of daily wage employees working under HDS in the Health Department by 65 years. Since the AYUSH Department was already segregated from the Health Department, the benefit of the said order was not made available to those working under the HDS in Government Ayurveda College Hospital, though they were identically placed as their counterparts in the Health Department. The 2nd respondent had requested the 1st respondent to enhance the retirement age of daily wage employees working under the HDS in the Ayurveda College Hospital also. According to the appellant, as the contract staff of the HDS in the Health Department is eligible to continue till he attains the age of 65 years, the same criteria is applicable to the appellant and he is eligible to continue till 65 years. In W.P.(c) No.6337 of 2024, filed by the appellant, this Court had directed the 1st respondent State to consider the representation made by the appellant in the light of Exts.P2 to P4 and to pass a decision and not to implement the same for a week if it is decided to terminate him from the service of the HDS. According to the appellant, 1st respondent passed Ext.P7 order dated 08.05.2024 rejecting the representation without considering any of the contentions raised by him.
4. Though
