Retired Employees are not eligible to Claim benefits of Subsequent Govt decisions to Increase Retirement Age.
Case Title: Dr. Prakasan MP and others v. State of Kerala and others.
Case Details: C.A. of 7580 of 2012.
DOD: August 25, 2023.
.jpg)
5. Judgment: Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government”. “It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges..."The bench also refused to extend the benefit of retrospective application to the 2012 Government Order which increased the age of retirement of Homeopathic Medical Doctors. “Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive. It is for the State to take a call as to whether the circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees or not. It must be assumed that the State would have weighed all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant an extension of age".
6. Details of Appeal against which case Instituted: Members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in respondent No. are aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th August 2010, passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in, W.A No. 1338 of 2010, concurring with the judgment dated 19th July 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.A.(Civil) 13537 of 2010. The relief prayed for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order dated 14th January, 20105, which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from 1st May 2009.
7. Facts of the Case: The State issued a Government Order6 dated 14th January 2010, recording inter-alia that there was a shortage of qualified and experienced medical faculties in several subjects in Government Medical Colleges in the State and that on account of the age of retirement of the faculty including medical doctors at 55 years, several departments were facing dearth of medical doctors which, was adversely affecting post-graduate medical courses. Noting that at the National level, the retirement age of doctors in Medical Colleges was 65 years and retention of senior professors in service would help the State increase the number of postgraduate seats as per the revised norms laid down by the Medical Council of India.
8. Judgment of the Court with reasoning:
i.It is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision C. A NO. 7580 of 2012 Page 7 of 13 to issue a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of the staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of different categories of teaching staff belonging to the Dental stream and the Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, as was done when G.O. dated 14th January 2010 was issued by the State and given retrospective effect from 1st May 2009. These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc.- PARA 11.
ii. Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive. It is for the State to take a call as to whether the circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees or not. It must be assumed that the State would have weighed all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant an extension of age. As for the aspect of retrospectivity of such a decision, let us not forget, that whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by the State Government, some employees would always be left out in the cold. But that alone would not make the decision C.A.NO. 7580 of 2012 bad; nor would it be a ground for the Court to tread into matters of policy that are best left for the State Government to decide. The appellants herein cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the benefits including the monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April 2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation-PARA 17.
iii. The clock cannot be put back for them by reading retrospectively in the G.O. dated 09th April 2012, when the State elected not to insert any such clause and evidently intended to apply it with prospective effect. The idea behind the extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by the shortage of doctors, which resulted in affecting the studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the service regulations. This is an exercise that is undertaken by the State in the discharge of its public duties and should not brook undue interference by the Court. -PARA 19.
9. Case law referred:
ii. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited. Vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1.
.jpg&description=SERVICE MATTERS: Retired Employees are not eligible to Claim benefits of Subsequent Govt decisions to Increase Retirement Age.){kind=link}
0 Comments