Claim for wages beyond retirement age dismissed due to prior judgments establishing res judicata.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2026 The petitioner was working as Divisional Manager of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation Limited. The age of retirement on superannuation in the Corporation was prescribed as 58 years. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.16571/2024 seeking enhancement of retirement age.

2. When the said writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed Ext.P2 interim order dated 28.05.2024 to the following effect:-

“There will be an interim direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years. However, continuing employment after the age of 58 years will be provisional and subject to further orders in this writ petition. The petitioner shall not draw any emoluments for the period beyond the age of 58 without further orders from this Court.”

3. On the basis of Ext.P2 interim order, the petitioner continued in service after the normal date of retirement on superannuation, from 01.06.2024 to 28.03.2025. Finally the writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment dated

24.03.2025.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that though the writ petition was dismissed, the petitioner is entitled to receive wages for the period he has worked on the basis of interim order. The petitioner would rely on Ext.P10 judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The relevant part of Ext.P10 judgment reads as follows:-

“3. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, as far as the relief regarding salary for the period the appellant has worked is concerned, we are of the view that it would be just proper and equitable to pay the salary to the appellant. “

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 to 4.

6. There was an interim order permitting the petitioner to continue in service as per Ext.P2. However, in Ext.P2, this Court made it clear that “ the petitioner shall not draw any emoluments for the period beyond the age of 58 without further orders from this Court”. The said writ petition went against the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P3 judgment. In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court did not give any direction regarding payment of salary for the period during which the petitioner continued in service on the basis of interim order.

7. In W.A.No.787/2025 filed by the petitioner, the question of grant of wages for the said period was taken note of by the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner’s argument that since the appellant had continued in service after attaining 58 years of age till the disposal of the writ petition on the strength of interim order and hence he is entitled to get salary, was noted by this Court. However, the Division Bench of this Court did not grant any relief to the petitioner.

8. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.42213/2025 seeking wages for the aforesaid period. The said writ petition was also disposed of making it clear that it would be open to the 3^rd respondent to look into the matter and consider the grievance of denial of wages to the petitioner. However, the respondents did not pass any orders.

9. It is thus evident that the petitioner’s claim for wages for period in question was agitated before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.787/2025 and the Division Bench of this Court has not granted relief. In the circumstances, Ext.P5 judgment of the Division Bench will act as resjudicata on the issue involved.

10. It is true that in Ext.P10 judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it would be just and proper and equitable to pay salary to the appellant in the said Civil Appeal. However, as there is a concluded inter-parte judgment in the case