Common Judgment in WP(C) Nos.23832/2019, 3428/2020 and 16442/2018, High Court of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 23832 OF 2019** **PETITIONER:** SUNIL KUMAR.A.S AGED 56 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, ALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR BY ADVS. R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.M.ASHOK KINI ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2 KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3 THE EXPERT COMMITTEE FOR STUDY ON THE FORMULATION OF A COMMON FRAME WORK FOR PAY/WAGE REVISION IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING,S CONSTITUTED BY THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS(BPE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.BAIJURAJ (r2) ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP PARVATHY KOTTOL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 2 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3428/2020, 16442/2018, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 3428 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 BOBAN .A.G. AGED 45 YEARS CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 2 VINOD S. DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 3 SALINI P.K. PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 4 MANJUSHA K.K. ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 5 SALIM K.S. OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 6 RAMESH M. OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 7 BALU K.K. OVERSEER - II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 8 MANJULA C.K. OVERSEER GRADE III, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 9 SHAJEENA K.A. SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 10 PREETHY A.P. 4 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 11 SHAKKEER K. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (I/C), KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 12 SUNIL V.G. OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 13 KUNJU P.A. ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 14 VENUGOPAL P. ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 15 G. RAVI DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 16 MARIAMMA C. ANTONY SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR 17 SHIBU K.Y. DRIVER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 18 BEERAN AYAMPATH DRIVER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 19 RASHEEJA P.P. OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VADAKARA 20 RAJAN K. LASCAR, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VADAKARA 21 VALSAMMA V.K. SECTION OFFICER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 22 SHEEJA M. 5 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 23 SREEJITH C.C. TYPIST GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 24 INDU V. ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 25 REJITH RAGHAVAN DRIVER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 26 RIZWANA BAI ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 27 SUSMITHA K.S. ASSISTANT GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 28 PREETHA R.G. ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 29 BISINI RAMACHANDRAN V. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER (I/C), KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA - 30 JAYASREE A.K. SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA - 31 SUJA P.T. ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA - 32 SANTHOSH HEBBY JOHN CLERICAL ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA 33 SUNITHAKUMARI K. LASCAR / HELPER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA - 34 MUHAMMED IQBAL S. 6 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 - LASCAR / HELPER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA - 35 BINDU M.S. OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA - 36 JAYAKUMAR G. ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER (1/C), KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 37 ULLAS S. CLERICAL ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 38 AJEEB A.V. SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 39 ARUNDAS K.H. ASSISTANT GRADE - II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 40 GOPAN S. TYPIST GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 41 SUNIJA K.S. PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 42 MESMER B. ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 43 N.K. RADHAKRISHNAN OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 44 HASSINA BEEVI A. OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 45 HAREESH A. OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA 7 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 |46|JISHA JAMES| |---|---| ||ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA| |47|SHEEBA TI,| ||ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA| |48|RAGINI J.| ||OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA| |49|JAYARANI G.| ||ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA| |50|RAJALEKSHMI T.| ||OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA| |51|PATHROSE V.| ||PART - TIME SWEEPER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA| |52|SHOJI ANTONY K.G.| ||DRIVER - GR.I, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER,| ||KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM,| ||ALAPPUZHA| |53|SHAJI C.K.| ||PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM| |54|MANI C.T.| ||DRIVER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NORTH| ||PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM| |55|REJIMOL P.S.| ||ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM| ||BY ADVS.| ||P.N.MOHANAN| ||SRI.C.P.SABARI| ||SMT.AMRUTHA SURESH| **RESPONDENTS:** 8 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 3 KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT COPRORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, MUSIUM BAINS COMPOUND, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 4 EXPERT COMMITTEE FOR STUDY ON THE FORMATION OF COMMON FRAME WORK FOR PAY / WAGE REVISION IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS, CONSTITUTED BY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BAIJURAJ G., SC, KLDC LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23832/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 9 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 S.KUMARI CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA. 2 LAILA M PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT,AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2 KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BAIJURAJ G., SC, KLDC LTD. SHRI.BAIJURAJ G., SC, KLDC LTD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23832/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 10 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** ## **[WP(C) Nos.23832/2019, 3428/2020, 16442/2018]** The writ petitioners are employees of Kerala State Land Development Corporation working in its various offices. The Kerala Land Development Corporation Ltd. (KLDC Ltd. hereinafter) was formed in 1972, under the Administrative Control of the Agricultural Department. The retirement age of the employees of the KLDC was fixed as 56 years. They are governed by EPF Pension Scheme 1995 . Under the EPF pension scheme, a member will be eligible to get full pension on attaining the age of 58 years even though he retires at the age of 56. The eligibility criteria for getting pension is that the member should have completed ten years of service and should have reached 58 years. According to the petitioner, about 60 public sector undertakings are under the control of the State of Kerala, where the age of the employees is either 58 years or 60 years. Government of Kerala, introduced contributory pension scheme with effect from 1-4-2013, to their employees and simultaneously revised their retirement age to 60 years by making an amendment to the Kerala Service Rules. However, the retirement age of persons engaged by KLDC Ltd., remain to be 56 years which according to the employees, was discriminatory. 2. On 14/5/1998, the Board of Directors of KLDC by resolution dated 11 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 14/5/1998 resolved to enhance the age of retirement of the employees from 55 to 60 years. The resolution was turned down by the Agricultural Department by an order dated 30/11/1999 on the ground that the Corporation was running on loss. In the meanwhile, some of the employees approached this Court by filing Writ Petition which was disposed of by judgment dated 4/6/2004, directing the Government to take decision within four months. The request for enhancement of retirement age was again turned down by the Government. Petitioners now claim that, the Corporation is running on profit. 3. The Government by order dated 25/8/2017, constituted an expert committee to study the wages of employees in all public sector undertakings including their retirement age. The Board of Management of the KLDC, by a resolution dated 23/11/2017, resolved to enhance the retirement age of the employees to 58 years and submitted a proposal to the Government. The Corporation also by their communication dated 16/1/2018 recommended the Government to enhance the retirement age of the employees of the Corporation. 4. In the meanwhile, some of the employees, who were retiring in the interregnum, submitted a representation to the Government seeking enhancement of the retirement age. Several employees had submitted identical representations for enhancement of the retirement benefits and also to extend the benefit to them, in case they retire during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Writ petitions indicate that, 13[th] and 21[st] petitioners in W.P. 12 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 (C)No.3428/2020 had retired on 30/4/2020, and 30/6/2020 respectively. The sole petitioner in W.P(C) No.23832/2019 retired on 30/9/2019. In W.P.(C) No.164442/2018, the date of retirement age of the petitioners were 31/5/2018 and 30/6/2018 respectively and on attaining the age of 56 years they also retired. All the above persons retired pending the writ petitions and also when the enhancement of retirement age was under active consideration of the Corporation and the Government. 6. The prayer sought in all the writ petitions was for a direction to the Corporation and the Government to consider the various representations submitted by them. In W.P.(C) No.16442/2018, the prayer was to consider the representations submitted as Exts.P2,P3 and P10 and to take appropriate final decision by the respondents in the light of the various Government Orders referred therein. Another prayer sought was to direct the Corporation to permit the petitioners to continue in service, till a decision was taken on their representation. 7. In W.P.(C) No.23832/2019, the relief sought was to declare that the employees of the Corporation are entitled to similar treatment of enhancement of their age of superannuation to 58 or 60 years as made applicable to other corporations in the State, especially the Corporations under the Agricultural Department of the State. Another prayer sought was to direct the Government to approve the proposal of the Corporation for enhancement of the retirement age. 8. In W.P.(C) No.3428/2020, the prayer sought by the petitioners was to 13 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 consider the representations in the light of the various Government orders raising the retirement age of the employees of the Corporation to 58 years or 60 years. It was also requested that ,it may be declared that, they are entitled to get enhancement of the retirement age as 58/60 years as the employees of other statutory Corporations are retiring on attaining the age of 58 years or 60 years. 9. During the pendency of the proceedings, by notification dated 19/2/2021 issued by the Agricultural Department, the age of retirement in the KLDC was enhanced from the age of 56 years to 58 years. It was stated in the notification that, under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, for claiming pension and other entitlements, the employees of KLDC have to wait till the attainment of age of 58 years. The Government felt that it affects the financial stability and security of the employees and considering the pendency of the writ petitions, the Government resolved to increase the age of retirement to 58 years, so as to enable the petitioners to secure EPF and MP Act benefits, at the time of retirement. This notification was placed before the Court by the Government Pleader and a copy of the above Government Order was also produced as Ext.P15 in W.P. (C) No.3428/2020. 10. When the notification was brought to the notice of this Court, this Court took note of the fact that few of the employees had retired, pending the proceedings and prior to the enhancement of the retirement age. Hence, this court by interim orders dated 23/2/2021 and 12/3/2021 directed the 14 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 Government to clarify whether the Government Order dated 19/2/2021 enhancing the age of retirement to 58 years could be extended only to employees in service as on the date of notification or whether it would enure to the benefit of the employees who had retired pending the writ petitions. The Government was directed to revert and the case was posted for further orders. Accordingly, by order dated 1/7/2021, the Government clarified that the enhancement of retirement age from 56 years to 58 by notification dated 19/2/2021, would be effective from the date of notification and since 13[th] and 21[st] petitioners retired prior to 19/2/2021, they are not entitled to the above benefits. The above order is produced as Ext.P17 in W.P.(C) No.3428/2020. 11. When the above was brought to the notice of this court, the court by orders dated 2/7/2021 and 6/7/2021 sought a further clarification as to whether the order enhancing the retirement age from 56 to 58 years can be given effect from the date of resolution by KLDC and it was directed to report the views to the Court. 12. The Government considered it and by order dated 8/9/2021 relying on the decision reported in **New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Anr. v. B.D.Singhal and Ors (AIR 2021 SC 3457** ), held that, after examining the entire facts, the Government had taken a policy decision not to enhance the age from 56 to 58. Consequently, the order was effective from 19/2/2021, the date of the notification and not retrospectively, even from the date of resolution of the Board of KLDC. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently assailed the 15 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 above, on the ground that, the order is discriminatory and the Government ought to have given retrospective operation to the statute. It was further contended that, in the case of five employees viz.petitioners Nos 13 and 21 in W.P.(C) No.3428/2020, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23823/2019 and petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16442/2018, who retired during the pendency of the writ proceedings, the benefit is liable to be extended to them. It was contended that fixing a cut of date excluding certain persons who were party to the lis cannot be justified and they are liable to be saved in the light of the pendency of the proceedings. 14. I am not attracted by this contentions for two specific reasons. Firstly, that it is a Government Decision, which is essentially based on a policy. Notification dated 19/2/2021 clearly does not indicate explicitly or impliedly that it will have retrospective operation. Necessarily, retirement age from the face of the notification came into effect from the date of the order only. Consequently, others who have already retired are not entitled to such benefits, by virtue of the order. 15. Secondly, the notification was issued during the pendency of the writ petitions. The ground of the alleged discrimination and relief on the basis of such ground of discrimination is not set up, obviously since the writ petitions were filed much earlier. Since grounds of attack of the Government notification were not pleaded nor made out from the present pleadings and in the absence of such prayer, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the notification or to grant any relief to the petitioners from the face of the above order. However, it 16 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 is made clear that the writ petitioners will be entitled to challenge the notification itself on any grounds available , if so advised, in an appropriate proceedings, This is all the more so, since there may be several other persons who have not approached the court, though retired in the interregnum. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to an interim order passed by this court dated 10/6/2020 in W.P.(C) 3428/2020. When the fact was brought to the notice of the court that petitioners 13 and 21 are likely to retire before the age is enhanced, this court passed an interim order as follows; “ It is needless to mention that the if the Government comes up with any policy decision raising the present age of retirement and the petitioners Nos. 13, and 21 falls within the present criteria, petitioners Nos.13 and 21 would be entitled to claim the benefits not withstanding their retirement.” Relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that, this saved the case of the petitioners 13 and 21, who were specifically protected by the above directions, notwithstanding their retirement during the pendency of the proceedings. 17. The above contentions cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. The interim order clearly shows that the protection will be applicable only if the Government comes up with any policy decision raising the present age of the retirement and also that if the petitioners 13, and 21 fall within the proposed age criteria, they will be entitled to claim the benefit. Since retrospective operation is not contemplated by the notification, evidently 17 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 petitioners 13 and 21 do not fall within the proposed age criteria as the orders stand now . 18. It is also to be seen that , even assuming that the court intended that if the age of retirement is enhanced and in the meanwhile petitioners 13 and 21 would retire, the benefit could extend to them also, such an intention is not specifically clear from the wordings of the interim order. That is a relief which was granted by the court in excess of the main prayer in the writ petitions. Prayer in the writ petitions was only for a direction to the Government to consider the request for disposal of Exts.P1 and P12 therein. Though another prayer to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get enhancement of the retirement age is made,, no such declaration is granted in this writ petition in the light of the Government notification. Necessarily, an interim order is expected to survive during the pendency of the writ petitions only and cannot exceed main relief sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, a relief granting protection to petitioners 13 and 21, on the basis of the interim order dated 10/6/2020 cannot be extended to the petitioners. 19. There is yet another reason for not granting such a relief in this writ petition. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.23832/2019 and W.P.(C) No.16442/2018 also retired pending the proceedings. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16442/2018 that, though he had sought identical interim relief, as in the case of petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3428/2020, such a relief was not granted by this court. In other words, if the protection, as sought by the petitioners, is extended to the petitioners 13 18 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 and 21 in the light of the interim order, such a protection cannot be extended to other petitioners, who were similarly situated. This court cannot also be oblivious of the fact that there may be a possibility of few other employees similarly situated and had retired during the pendency of these proceedings, but have not approached this court. Virtually, this court does not propose to segregate few persons who are granted such relief by an interim order and grant a benefit. 20. Opposing the prayers, the learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the decision reported in New Okhala Industrial Development Authority'case (supra) to contended that, the Supreme Court in that case had held that a Government Order enhancing the age of superannuation can be given retrospective operation only if it is expressly stated or granted by necessary implication. Employees cannot claim as right for enhancement in age of retirement from the date of submission of proposal for approval of the Government. It was held therein that the Government Order enhancing the operation come into operation from the date mentioned in the notification. It cannot run retrospectively unless it is so provided. In this case also, precisely the petitioners are requesting for enhancement of age with effect from the date of resolution by the Board. This has been specifically rejected by the Government. In the absence of any specific challenge, if any, available to the parties on legality and correctness of those Government Orders, I am inclined to hold at present, that no such reliefs can be considered nor granted in the writ petition, as is prayed now. 19 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 In the light of the above, I am inclined to dismiss the writ petition holding that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. However, this will not preclude the petitioners from challenging the Government Order to the extent it denies the right to persons who retired prior to that during the interregnum of passing the resolution till the date of order and those of the petitioners who retired pending the proceedings. Their right to challenge the legality of the Government Order and the clarificatory order passed thereafter, in accordance with law, if any such grounds is available, is left open. It is made clear, that no comment is made in these writ petitions regarding the merits of the above Government Order. The writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- ## **SUNIL THOMAS** **Judge** dpk W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 20 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3428/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.1483/2010 ID DATED18.10.2010 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO.15/2011 DATED 01.03.2011 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.33/2011 DATED 22.02.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.01/2011 CSIN DATED 26.02.2011 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.65/2011 DATED 26.02.2011 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED ON 01.08.2019 UNDER THE RTI ACT EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO. 20/2013 FIN. DATED 07.01.2013 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2017 OF THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2907 DATED 23.11.2017 OF THE KLDC EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.01.2018 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2018 OF THE EMPLOYEES EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE KLDC EMPLOYEES UNION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P14: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10/6/2020 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3428/2020 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 21 EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/2/2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KLDC/ADMN/RTD.CON.EMP/1332/2020 DATED 12/8/2020 OF THE KLDC Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.64/2021 DATED 01.07.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT. W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 22 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16442/2018** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ITS CHAIRMAN ON 7-10-2017. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 23-112017 OF THE 275TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF KLDC. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO.KLDC/A4/ADMN/SSRAC/719/17 DATED 16-12018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.175/PU.3/2017/AGRI. DATED 9-3-2018. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.1483/2010/ID DATED 18-10-2010. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.33/2011/TD DATED 22-2-2011. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.65/11/AD DATED 26-2-2011. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.1/2011/CSIN DATED 26-2-2011. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS)NO.15/2011/FOREST DATED 1-3-2011. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF KLDC BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ON 26-4-2018. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER DATED 16-5-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER DATED 16-5-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURAL 23 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 DEPARTMENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF COMUNICATION NO.57/PU/2018/AGRI.DATED 29/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P14: COPY OF GO(MS) NO.402/2017/FIN.DATED 25/8/2017 ## **RESPNDENTS EXHIBITS:** EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 29/6/2018 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 24 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23832/2019** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||26.08.2019, RECEIVED FROM KAMCO| |EXHIBIT P1|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||19.08.2019 RECEIVED FROM PLANTATION| ||CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED| |EXHIBIT P1|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||16.08.2019, RECEIVED FROM STATE FARMING| ||CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD| |EXHIBIT P1|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||09.08.2019 RECEIVED FROM OIL PALM INDIA| ||LTD.| |EXHIBIT P2|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER| ||DATED 25.08.2017| |EXHIBIT P3|THE PHOTOCOPY OF EXTRACT OF RESOLUTION| ||NO.2907 DATED 23.11.2017| |EXHIBIT P4|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||16.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND| ||RESPONDENT BEFORE GOVERNMENT| |EXHIBIT P5|THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED| ||18.10.2010| |EXHIBIT P6|THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED| ||22.2.2011| |EXHIBIT P7|THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED| ||26.2.2011| |EXHIBIT P8|THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED| ||26.2.2011| |EXHIBIT P9|THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED| ||1.03.2011| |EXHIBIT P10|THE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED| ||26.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEES OF 2ND| ||RESPONDENT CORPORATION| W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 25 |EXHIBIT P11|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER| |---|---| ||DATED 6.10.2018| |EXHIBIT P12|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||16.09.2019 RECEIVED FROM KERALA STATE| ||WAREHOUSING CORPORATION.| |EXHIBIT P13|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||26.08.2019 RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA AGRO| ||MACHINERY CORPORATION| |EXHIBIT P14|THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||27.08.2019, RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA STATE| ||HORTI CULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT| ||CORPORATION LIMITED| ||EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED| ||30/9/2019 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| ||EXT.P16: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED| ||30/9/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE| ||CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER OF THE SCOND| ||RESPONDENT.| ||EXT.P17: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER| ||NO.30/2021/AGRICULTURE DATED 19/2/2021| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT R2(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.170/12/FIN,| ||DATED 22-03-2012.| |EXHIBIT R2(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF| ||28OTH MEETING DATED 28.09.2019.|