Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26218
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
D THANKAMANI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 18293/2017
Retirement age policies restrict the entitlement of physically handicapped employees to service extension beyond established age limits and affect gratuity eligibility based on service duration.
Headnote:
Employment - Disability Rights - Government Order 2013 - Retirement Age Provisions - Summary of legal framework concerning the rights of physically handicapped employees regarding re-appointment and retirement age limits, establishing limitations on claims related to gratuity based on service duration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a physically handicapped individual, sought to extend her service until age 60, claiming that her re-appointment for less than five years prevented her from qualifying for gratuity. She was appointed as an LD Typist for limited years and pressed for her rights concerning retirement age and gratuity.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in service beyond the retirement age of 58 years to secure gratuity due to her physical handicap.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner’s rights to continued service or gratuity are governed by the existing retirement age and service duration policies, which do not support her claim.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is Physically Handicapped was appointed as LD Typist during the period from 29.11.2000 to 19.05.2001 under the 2nd respondent. On the basis of Ext.P2 Government Order issued on 07.08.2013, directing re- appointment of those Physically Handicapped candidates, who worked for 179 days during the period from 16.08.1999 to 31.12.2003, on appointment through Employment Exchange, the petitioner was re-appointed under the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P3 order dated 22.01.2014. At the time when the re- appointment was made, the petitioner was aged 54 years. The retirement age under the 2nd respondent is 58 years. Complaining that she has got only 3 years and 5 months' service as on the date of her superannuation on 31.05.2017, she approached the 2nd respondent with Ext.P4 representation requesting to allow her to continue till the age of 60 years or to take appropriate steps for grant of gratuity. By Ext.P5 letter, Government informed the petitioner that her claim for gratuity cannot be entertained for want of 5 years service and since the qualifying service in her case is only for 3 years and
4 months.
2. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit her to continue in service as LD Typist till she attains the age of 60 years, so as to enable her to draw gratuity on completion of 5 years.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 as well as the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that, the proposal for enhancement of retirement of age for employees under the 2nd respondent is forwarded to the Government and the same is pending. As at present, the retirement age continues to be 58 years. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that at the time of re-appointment as per Ext.P3 order itself the petitioner was aged 54 years and that re- appointment was at the time when the retirement age was 58 years. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any valid claim for continuance in service, at this stage after she attained the age of superannuation. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has already been relieved on
31.05.2017.
5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, petitioner cannot have any valid claim for retention beyond the age of 58 years. At any rate if the retirement age is enhanced under the 2nd respondent, the retirement of the petitioner on superannuation on 31.05.2017 shall not stand in the way of her re-engagement by the 2nd respondent. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
