Justus Karunarajan and others v. State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Kerala; Plantation Corporation Kerala Limited represented by its Managing Director; Nithin K. Nixon (sought to be impleaded)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **WP(C) NO. 11733 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 JUSTUS KARUNARAJAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O GEORGE, A J VILLA, PULIPPANAM, KATTATHURAI P.O, KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 629158** - **2 P.M. BABUMON, AGED 57 YEARS** **S/O MADHAVAN, PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAKKAD.P.O, VAYALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686587** - **3 R.J.BABU AGED 57 YEARS DEVASREE, BHOOTHAKULAM.P.O, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691302** - **4 T.SUBRU MUTHU RAM, AGED 57 YEARS S/O M THANKAMANI, VELLIKKODE, KATTATHURAI, KANYAKUMARI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 629158** - **5 SAJIKUMAR.V, AGED 57 YEARS** - **S/O VIJAYAN.P.K, PUTHANVILAYIL, ANGADIKKAL SOUTH.P.O, KODUMAN, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691555** - **6 C.SHAJI, AGED 57 YEARS S/O C.C.BABY, CHERIYATH HOUSE, CHANDANAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689648** - **7 JOY B, AGED 57 YEARS S/O BABY, VATTAKUNNIL HOUSE, KODUMON.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691555** **BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR P.R.REENA** **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **2** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001** - **2 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION KERALA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686002** - **3 NITHIN K. NIXON ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) S/O SOSAMMA NIXON, RESIDING AT CHARIVUPURAYIDATHIL, ELANTHOOR EAST PO, PATHANAMTHITTA ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED )** **BY ADVS. Abel Tom Benny ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR D.PREM KAMATH(K/1285/1998) TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)(K/000821/2008) AMRUTHA SELVAM(K/001249/2023) PRAISY THOMAS(CG/249/2020) GENTLE C.D.(K/62/2022) S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019) SAJANA V.H SHAIJU GEORGE AADERSH R.S. PANICKER PUSHPAVATHI.K** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SR.ADV. SRI. RENJITH THAMPAN INSTRUCTED BY SRI V M KRISHNAKUMAR** **SR. ADV. SRI.BENNY.P. THOMAS INSTRUCTED BY SRI TOM THOMAS, SR. GP . SRI. BIMAL.K. NATH** ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **30.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **3** ## **M A ABDUL HAKHIM, J** **--------------------------------WP(C) No.11733/2024** **----------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] May, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** 1. Petitioners are employees and officers of the 2[nd] respondent who are going to retire on 31.05.2024. The grievance of the petitioners are with respect to non-enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60. They are seeking consideration of Ext.P6 Representation submitted by them to the 1[st] respondent and to permit them to continue till the consideration of the Representation. 2. Petitioners filed the Writ Petition contending, inter alia, that the 1[st] respondent issued Government Order dt. 29.10.2022 taking a policy decision that the retirement age of employees of all State PSUs shall be enhanced uniformly to 60 as in the case of Central PSUs; that as per Ext.P2 Government Order the 1[st] respondent modified Ext.P1 that the retirement age of employees of public sector units would be considered on **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **4** individual basis; that as per Ext.P4 Decision No. 423/2018 the Board of Directors of the 2[nd] respondent decided to enhance the retirement age of the employees from 58 to 60; that Ext.P5 Communication dt. 17.04.2016 was sent by the Managing Director of 2[nd] respondent to the 1[st] respondent for approval of the Ext.P4 decision of the Board of Directors of 2[nd] respondent; that the petitioners have submitted Ext.P6 Representation dated 07.03.2024 to the Principal Secretary of Agricultural Department of the 1[st] respondent through the Managing Director of the 2[nd] respondent requesting for enhancing the retirement age to 60; that as per G.O(Ms) No.21/2017(P&EA) dt. 24.10.2017 an Expert Committee was constituted to conduct a comprehensive study of the formulation of common frame work regarding the pay and wages of public sector units in the State of Kerala, which include the question of enhancement of retirement age of the employees and workers of public sector units; that as per G.O(Ms) No.88/2023/ID dt. 21.12.2023 the retirement age of the employees of the Kerala Coir Workers Welfare Fund Board was enhanced from 58 to 60; and that in identical **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **5** matter this Court by Ext.P7 judgment dt. 29.02.2024 directed the 1[st] respondent to direct the expert committee to take a decision regarding enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 in the case of Kerala Live Stock Development Board and until then permitted the employees to continue. On these contentions petitioners filed this writ petition seeking direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 on the basis of Exts.P2 and P4 within a time frame and to declare that in view of Ext.P4, petitioners are entitled to continue in the service of the 2[nd] respondent until they attain the age of 60 years. 3. The 2[nd] respondent filed a Counter Affidavit dated 23.05.2024 opposing the prayers in the Writ petition contending, inter alia, that the 1[st] respondent holds 100% shares of the 2[nd] respondent and all the members of the Board of Directors are nominated by the Government; that as per clause 115 of the Articles of Association of the 2[nd] respondent Government approval is required for all service matters including extension of retirement age; that in view of Ext.R2(a) Office **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **6** Memorandum issued by the Government of India, the first condition is that the PSU has to make net profits for the last three consecutive years prior to the raising the retirement age to 60; that the 2[nd] Respondent is consistently making losses from 2015-16 until now, a favorable circumstance for raising the retirement age to 60 as envisaged in Ext.P2 and Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government does not exist; that Ext.P4 Decision forwarded as per Ext.P5 was rejected by the 1[st] respondent; and that when the recommendation was made by the Board of Directors of 2[nd] respondent in 2016 it was not aware of the specific provisions in the office memorandum of the Central Government. 4. I heard Senior Counsel Sri. Renjith Thampan instructed by Adv.Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Bimal.K.Nath for the 1[st] Respondent and Senior Counsel Sri.Benny P Thomas instructed by Adv. Sri.Tom Thomas for the 2[nd] Respondent. 5. Senior Counsel Sri Renjith Thampan argued that since the 2[nd] **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **7** Respondent has already taken a decision as per Ext.P4 which is communicated to the 1[st] respondent as per Ext.P5, the 1[st] respondent is liable to be directed to consider Ext.P6 Representation on the basis of Ext.P4 Decision of the Board of Directors as there is no other decision of the Board canceling or modifying Ext.P4 decision. He submitted that Ext.P7 judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The learned Single Judge in Ext.P7 ordered to allow the petitioner therein to continue till a decision is taken by the Expert Committee regarding the enhancement of age from 58 to 60 on the recommendation of 4[th] respondent therein/ KLD Board. He invited my attention on Ext.P5 Government Order dt 19.04.2023 by which the 1[st] respondent reconstituted the Expert Committee and the terms of reference include to fix the parameters for examination of the enhancement of the retirement age in State PSUs on a case to case basis as ordered in Ext.P2 Government Order. The Senior Counsel also referred to Ext.P9 Interim Order of this Court which is given in favour of the employees of Kerala Feeds Limited permitting them to continue in the post where they are working till final **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **8** decision is taken by the 1[st] respondent. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent argued that Ext. P7 judgment and Ext.P9 interim order passed by this Court are clearly distinguishable on facts. Since Ext.P5 request submitted by the 2[nd] respondent is rejected by the Government, there is no pending request before the 1[st] respondent for enhancing the retirement age of the employees of the 2[nd] respondent. The financial condition of the 1[st] respondent is quite unsatisfactory on account of the accumulated losses, for enhancing the retirement age of the employees. The financial condition of the establishment is the crucial one for considering enhancement of retirement age. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Bimal.K.Nath opposed the prayers in the Writ Petition submitting that since Ext.P1 has been modified by Ext.P2 the request for enhancement of retirement age has to be considered individually with respect to different PSUs after considering the relevant parameters including financial condition. **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **9** 8. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that there is no pending request from the part of the 2[nd ] respondent to the 1[st] respondent for enhancement of retirement age of its employees since Ext.P5 request is already rejected by 1[st] respondent in the year 2016 itself. The petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the 1[st] respondent rejecting Ext.P5. Without any subsisting decision of the 2[nd] respondent in favour of the petitioner to enhance the retirement age, the petitioners cannot maintain Ext.P6 request before the 1[st] respondent. 9. Ext.P7 judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts since the establishment therein namely KLD Board took a decision to enhance the age of its employees from 58 to 60 years and the same has been pending before the 1[st] respondent. In Ext.P9 Interim Order also, the establishment therein has taken decision to enhance the retirement age of its employees and the request for approval has been pending consideration before the 1[st] respondent. But in the case on hand no such decision is taken by the 2[nd] respondent and no such request is **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **10** pending consideration before the 1[st] respondent. 10. Though Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sandhya Educational Society and another v. Union of India and others (2014(7)SCC 701)** and submitted that since the learned Single Judge of this Court has passed Ext.P7 judgment and Ext.P9 interim order, the judicial decorum and discipline demands passing of similar orders in favour of the petitioners in this Writ Petition also. Since I have already found that the facts in Ext.P7 judgment and Ext.P9 interim order are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the present case the petitioners are not entitled to get similar orders. 11. The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that Government approval is not necessary for enhancing the age of the employees of a company when the Board of Directors of the Company has taken a decision to enhance the retirement age. But as rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent, the petitioners themselves **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **11** have sought approval from the Government in Ext.P6 Representation. The 2[nd] respondent is fully owned Government Company and hence it requires approval from the Government at least in major matters like enhancement of retirement age. The provision for approval from Government is included in the Articles Association also as revealed from the Counter affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent. 12. None of the contentions raised by the petitioners is sustainable. Accordingly this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM** **JUDGE** ## **jma** **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **12** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11733/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**Exhibit P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF**| |---|---| ||**GO(P).NO.131/ 2022/FIN DATED 29.10.2022**| |**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(P).NO.135/2022/FIN DATED**| ||**04.11.2022**| |**Exhibit P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE**| ||**CHAIRMAN OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED**| ||**04.11.2023**| |**Exhibit P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES RESOLUTION OF**| ||**THE DIRECTOR BOARD OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**SIGNED BY THE SECRETARY ON DATED 28.03.2016**| |**Exhibit P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF MANAGING DIRECTOR**| ||**OF PLANTATION CORPORATION DATED 17.04.2016 TO**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT**| |**Exhibit P6**|**TRUE COPY THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.03.2024**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE**| ||**PRINCIPAL**<br>**SECRETARY,**<br>**DEPARTMENT**<br>**OF**| ||**AGRICULTURE**| |**Exhibit P7**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**THE**<br>**JUDGMENT**<br>**IN**| ||**WP(C).NO.2357/2024 DATED 29.02.2024**| |**Exhibit P8**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO. 72/2023/FIN DATED**| ||**19.04.2023**| |**Exhibit P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C).NO.**| ||**11049/2024 DATED 05.04.2024**| |**RESPONDENT EXHIBITS**|| |**Exhibit R3(a)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2017**| ||**OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 12185/2017**| |**Exhibit R3(b)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2018**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT**| **13** ## **WP(C) No.11733/2024** **Exhibit R3(c)** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2024 BEARING NO. PCK/F&A/50 ISSUED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **Exhibit R2(a)** **True copy of the copy of the Office Memorandum F. No.18(6)/98-GM issued by the Government of India raising the retirement age to 60 in CPSUs April, 2018.**