Employees lack entitlement to enforce governmental decisions on retirement policy; continuation in service pending governmental approval is warranted.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by non-

enhancement of the retirement age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years.

2. The petitioner states that he joined the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation as a Class IV Worker and he is now working as Godown Keeper. The petitioner has attained the age of 58 years on 05.11.2025. As per the norms of the Government of India, the retirement age of the employees of the Warehousing Corporation is 58 years.

3. On the request of the petitioner and other workers, the 3^rd respondent, after discussions and studies, decided to place a request before the State Government to enhance the retirement age of the employees of the Warehousing Corporation. The Labour Department has issued a Government Order dated 18.02.2021 increasing the age of plantation labours from 58 to 60 yeas, contends the petitioner.

4. While the Corporation as well as employees were expecting a decision of the State Government, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P6 letter of the 4^th respondent stating that he would attain the age of 58 and hence as per the Rules, the petitioner has to retire on 30.11.2025. The petitioner is therefore before this Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the Warehousing Corporation is under Agricultural Department, the 2^nd respondent is liable to decide the proposal made by the Corporation at the earliest. The Warehousing Corporation of Kerala is fully owned by the State Government. The 2^nd respondent is therefore compellable to take a decision on the proposal made by the Corporation.

6. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that though there is a proposal made for enhancement of retirement age, such proposal is subject to the approval to be given by the Government of Kerala. As long as the Government of Kerala is not giving its seal or approval on the proposal, the employees like the petitioner cannot aspire to continue in service till the age of 60 years.

7. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and resisted the writ petition. Merely because a Public Sector Undertaking has made a proposal for enhancement of retirement age of his employees, the employees of the PSU will not get a right to continue in service. Various studies will have to be conducted for taking a final decision on the proposal for enhancement of retirement age. Till the Government grants approval for enhancement of retirement age, the petitioner cannot claim any right whatsoever.

8. The Government Pleader relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Dr. Jyothish Kumar V. [2025 KHC Online 161] and urged that by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a matter of right an employee cannot seek a direction against the Government to take that policy decision in a particular manner.

9. The Government Pleader pointed out that the Division Bench in the afore judgment has categorically held that an employee cannot expect that the Government will take the decision in a particular manner, on the proposal made by the PSU concerned. It completely depends on the study report of the Expert Committee constituted and also several other socio economic aspects under consideration of the Government.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent 3 and 4.

11. The retirement age of the employees of the 3^rd respondent-Corporation is 58 years. The 3^rd respondent has made a pr