K.SASI v. State of Kerala and Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited (WP(C). Nos. 24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/13TH SRAVANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 24784 of 2014 (W)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------** **K.SASI, DRIVER, KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED, ANNAPOORNA, T.C.9/2000-01, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.VISHNU SRI.M.J.AJITH MOHAN** **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:** - **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (C)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANNAPOORNA, T.C.9/2000-01, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** **3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED, ANNAPOORNA, T.C.9/2000-01, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** **R1 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNAN KAIMAL R2-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR SC SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, SC,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2017, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 27138/2014, AND CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sdr/-** ## **WP(C).No. 24784 of 2014 (W)** **----------------------------** **APPENDIX -----------------** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.56/10/ID DATED 15.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.08.2014 TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES.** **EXHIBIT P2(A). ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2.** **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ITEM NO.29(VI) OF THE AGENDA NOTES FOR THE 266TH BOARD MEETING SIGNED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED.** **EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED TRUE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF 266TH MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS HELD ON 26.08.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.108/2014/ID DATED 31.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.P-221/01(3)/859 DATED 01.09.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6(A). ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6.** **EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.09.2014 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7(A). ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7.** **EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.34317/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1323/2011/ID DATED 24.10.2011 OF THE INDUSTRIES (H) DEPARTMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.03/2012/S&T DATED 16.04.2014 OF THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.146/2013/CO-OP. DATED 29.11.2013 OF THE COOPERATION DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.8/2014/H&FWD DATED 04.01.2014 OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT.** ## **WP(C).No. 24784 of 2014 (W)** **--------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.131/2014/H&FWD DATED 30.04.2014 OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.160/2014/H&FWD DATED 30.05.2014 OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT** **EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C)NO.18668 OF 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 26656/C3/14/ID DATED 12.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSTC AS WELL AS HE ADVOCATE GENERAL ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. NO. 469/2014/FIN. DATED 31.10.2014** **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO. 29/14/PLG DATED8.7.2014** **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 754/2014/H.EDN. DT. 29.8.2014** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------** **EXT.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **/TRUE COPY/** **PA TO JUDGE** **sdr/-** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** ## **---------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014 ----------------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2017 ## **J U D G M E N T** These writ petitions are filed by the employees of Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited seeking enhancement of retirement age. Documents referred to in this judgment are as described in W.P.(C).No.24784 of 2014. 2. The Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited is a Government of Kerala Undertaking, fully owned by Government. It was incorporated in the year 1972 with the objective of setting up of/running textile mills in Kerala. The retirement age of the staff of the Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited was fixed as 58 years as per Ext.P1 order dated 15.03.2010. The employees of the Corporation raised demands for enhancement of retirement age, pointing out such enhancement in certain Public Sector Undertakings like Kerala Bureau of Information Promotion. Thereupon, the 266[th] meeting of the Board of Directors of Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited, which met on 26.08.2014 resolved W.P.(C).Nos.24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014 2 to enhance the age of retirement of the staff to 60 years subject to approval by Government, as can be seen from Ext P4 minutes. The said resolution was forwarded to Government, as per Ext.P6 letter dated 01.09.2014 of the Managing Director. Petitioners approached this Court, pointing out that the request for enhancement of retirement age is under the process of the Industries Department and it was pointed out that in several other public sector undertaking the retirement age was enhanced. Therefore, the directions were sought in the writ petition to allow them to continue in service of upto the age of 60 years, on the basis of the resolution passed by the Director of Board. 3. Interim orders were passed directing the Government to take a decision on the question within 2 months and allowing the petitioners to continue in service beyond 58 years subject to the decision of the Government and on condition that they have to work without salary beyond 30.9.2014. Thereafter, as per Ext.P16 letter dated 12.12.2014 (produced along with I.A No. 11854 of 2015), informed that the Government has decided to continue the present status in the W.P.(C).Nos.24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014 3 matter of retirement age of the employees. 4. The interim orders were thereafter modified directing retirement age of the petitioners who had already crossed the age of retirement and making the retirement subject to the result of the writ petition. 5. The Government as well as the Kerala State Textile Corporation Limited has filed counter affidavit, pointing out that Government has already rejected the request for approval. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader. 7. I have considered a similar case in my judgment dated 04.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No.7107 of 2016 and connected cases filed by the employees of Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd (TCC), another Government Company, in which the request for enhancement of retirement age, was not allowed. There the original decision of the TCC to enhance the retirement age was cancelled, after Government passed orders rejecting approval. Those writ petitions were dismissed, following the judgment of the Division Bench W.P.(C).Nos.24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014 4 of this Court in **State of Kerala v. Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees Union** [I.L.R. 2016 (2) Kerala 81] in which the decision of the Government is rejecting the recommendation of Board of Directors of Kerala Land Development Corporation for enhancement of the retirement age, was upheld. In the case of employees of Kerala State Financial Enterprises, also the order passed by Government was upheld. 8. In **K.Nagaraj v. State of A.P** [1985 (1) SCC 523] the Apex Court held that the policy issues like the age of retirement are not liable to be interfered with by the courts in exercise of judicial review and it is an exercise which the Administrator and the legislature have to undertake. There the employees challenged the lowering of retirement age from 58 years to 55 years. The following observations in that judgment are relevant, which read as follows: “28. xxxx xxx It is not possible to lay down an inflexible rule that 58 years is a reasonable age for retirement and 55 is not. If the policy adopted for the time being by the Government or the Legislature is shown to violate recognised norms of employment planning, it would be possible to say that the policy is irrational since, in that event, it would not bear W.P.(C).Nos.24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014 5 reasonable nexus with the object which it seeks to achieve. But such is not the case here. The reports of the various Commissions, from which we have extracted relevant portions, show that the creation of new avenues of employment for the youth is an integral part of any policy governing the fixation of retirement age. Since the impugned policy is actuated and influenced predominantly by that consideration, it cannot be struck down as arbitrary or irrational. We would only like to add that the question of age of retirement should always be examined by the Government with more than ordinary care, more than the State Government has bestowed upon it in this case. The fixation of age of retirement has minute and multifarious dimensions which shape the lives of citizens. Therefore, it is vital from the point of view of their well-being that the question should be considered with the greatest objectivity and decided upon the basis of empirical data furnished by scientific investigation. What is vital for the welfare of the citizens is, of necessity, vital for the survival of the State. Care must also be taken to ensure that the statistics are not perverted to serve a malevolent purpose.” 9. In this case also the same principle applies and the policy decision of Government not to enhance the retirement age is not liable to be interfered with. 10. In the above circumstances, the prayers in these writ petitions for enhancement of retirement age cannot be allowed. 11. However, the petitioners are persons who W.P.(C).Nos.24784, 27138, 30261 & 30565 of 2014 6 retired from service before and after 2014. They are entitled to their terminal benefits. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the terminal benefits including gratuity due to the petitioners, reckoning the retirement age as 58 years, without any delay, at any rate, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS