High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; Writ petition allowed with di...
M.J. Sunny and K.C. Jose v. Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd. and State of Kerala and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 7858 of 2011 (F)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.M. Shaffique
- Judgment Date
- 2013-04-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- Petition allowed. The court directed: (i) Ext.P14 is set aside. (ii) Petitioners are entitled to continue in service till 58 years and shall be reinstated in service. (iii) Terminal benefits already received must be refunded to the first respondent. (iv) Petitioners shall not be entitled to salary or other allowances for the period they were kept out of service. (v) The respondents must pass appropriate orders on Ext.P15 within one month from receipt of this judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Petition allowed; Writ petition allowed with directions as stated above.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M.J. Sunny
- K.C. Jose
Respondents
- Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd., GOKULAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHURAM-695004 (Represented by its Managing Director)
- State of Kerala, represented by its Principal Secretary, Secretary to Government Animal Husbandry Department, Govt. Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- Kerala Livestock Development Board Officers Confederation Dhoni, represented by its President Dr. Anoop (ADDL.3)
- K.R. Sudhakaran, Secretary, Kerala Livestock Development Board Officers Confederation, Dhoni, Palakkad (ADDL.4)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Deepu Thankan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sumathy Dandapani (Sr.)
- • Millu Dandapani
- • Padmarajan
- • P. Lissy Jose
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition by M.J. Sunny and K.C. Jose challenges the retirement age fixed for employees of the Kerala Livestock Development Board. The petition seeks a declaration that the retirement age should be enhanced to 58 years in line with a government policy, and seeks directions to reinstate the petitioners at that age with continuity of service. The board had passed a resolution to increase retirement age, but Ext.P14 (a government order) rejected this proposal. The Board later adopted Ext.P16 on 18.02.2012 during pendency, but the government did not consider it. The petitioners relied on Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C. Ltd. (2007(2) KLT 917) and other Single Judge judgments (Exts.P4–P7) which directed retirement at 58 years and, in certain cases, reinstatement with refund of terminal benefits. The government contended that as per Employees Pension Scheme 1995, employees retire at 55 and that policy changes should not be presumed. In Ext.P7, the court had relied on Kavirajan to grant 58 years and reinstatement, with refund of terminal benefits and without salary for the period out of service. Ultimately, the court held that Ext.P14 be set aside, the petitioners be permitted to continue till 58, be reinstated, have terminal benefits refunded, and that there be a direction to pass orders on Ext.P15 within one month.
Provisions of Law Cited
Employees Pension Scheme 1995Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that, following Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C. Ltd. and other Single Judge decisions (Exts.P4–P7), employees are entitled to extend retirement to 58 years. They argued that government policy did not override board resolutions and that Ext.P14, which refused the extension, was arbitrary. They relied on the earlier rulings directing 58 years of service and relief including reinstatement and refunds of terminal benefits, and sought a declaration to fix retirement at 58 and reinstatement with continuity of service.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that employees are governed by the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and would retire at 55; the government policy is not to enhance retirement age; the board’s resolution to extend retirement should not be read as a guaranteed entitlement; given the corporation is profitable, extending retirement is permissible, but the government’s policy to limit retirement age remains valid.
Cited Precedents (6)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C. Ltd. | 2007(2) KLT 917 | Positive | The court relied on Kavirajan to support the entitlement of employees to retire at 58 years and to consider reinstatement in related cases (as discussed in Ext.P7). |
| KSINC – WPC 11794/2006 | WPC 11794/2006 | Mentioned Only | Ext.P4 is cited as part of the record of authorities; the judgment references it but does not explicitly articulate its treatment in the present decision. |
| KFDC – WPC 9460/2007 | WPC 9460/2007 | Mentioned Only | Ext.P5 is cited among the relied authorities but the present judgment does not elaborate its independent treatment. |
| WPC 22320/2008 | WPC 22320/2008 | Mentioned Only | Ext.P7 and related judgments include this citation; it is referenced as part of the precedents considered. |
| WPC 6047/2010 | WPC 6047/2010 | Mentioned Only | Ext.P17 refers to this judgment; it is listed among authorities but not explicitly treated within the decision. |
| WPC 35407/2007 | WPC 35407/2007 | Mentioned Only | Ext.P13 references this judgment; cited as part of background authorities without explicit treatment in the order. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M.J. Sunny and K.C. Jose v. Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd. and State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
**MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935**
**WP(C).No. 7858 of 2011 (F) ---------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S):-**
**-------------**
**1. M.J.SUNNY, AGRICULTURAL SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BULL STATION PALAKKAD.**
**2. K.C. JOSE, TYPIST, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MUVATTUPUZHA.**
**BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN**
**RESPONDENT(S):-**
**-------------**
## **1. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD.,**
**GOKULAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.**
**2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**
**ADDL.3. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD OFFICERS CONFEDERATION DHONI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.ANOOP.**
**“ 4. K.R.SUDHAKARAN, SECRETARY, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD OFFICERS CONFEDERATION, DHONI, PALAKKAD.**
**( ADDL.R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1.4.2013 IN IA.NO.4811/2013.)**
**R1 BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI**
**R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.PADMARAJAN. RADDL.3 & ADDL.4 BY ADV. SMT.P.LISSY JOSE.**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
## **WP(C).No. 7858 of 2011 (F) ---------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
|**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS**<br>**:-**|**PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS**<br>**:-**|
|---|---|
|**EXT.P1:**|**COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 160 MEETING OF THE**|
||**BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IST RESPONDENT BOARD HELD ON**|
||**24/6/2006.**|
|**EXT.P2:**|**COPY OF THE LIST OF PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS WITH THE**|
||**AGE OF RETIREMENT PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC**|
||**ENTERPRISES IN THE YEAR 2002-2003.**|
|**EXT.P3:**|**COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE**|
||**KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATIONS DTD.1.6.2005.**|
|**EXT.P4:**|**COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN**|
||**WPC.NO.11794/2006 WITH RESPECT OF KSINC DTD.3/7/2007.**|
|**EXT.P5:**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA**|
||**IN WPC.NO.9460/2007 DTD.18.7.2007 WITH RESPECT OF KFDC.**|
|**EXT.P6:**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COIURT IN WA.NO.**|
||**2380/2007 DTD.3/10/2007.**|
|**EXT.P7:**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.22320/**|
||**2008 DTD.19.7.2010.**|
|**EXT.P8:**|**COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER NO.1483/2010/ID DTD.18/10/2010.**|
|**EXT.P9:**|**COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DATED 22/2/2011 ENHANCE THE**|
||**RETIREMENT AGE OF EMPLOYEES OF KERALA STATE**|
||**BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD.**|
|**EXT.P10:**|**COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DTD.26.2.2011 WITH RESPECT OF THE**|
||**EMPLOYEES OF KERAL STATE INLAND NAVIGATION CORPORATION.**|
|**EXT.P11:**|**COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DTD 26.2.2011 WITH RESPECT OF THE**|
||**EMPLOYEES OF KERAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD.**|
|**EXT.P12:**|**COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DTD 1/3/2011 WITH RESPECT OF THE**|
||**EMPLOYEES OF KERAL STATE FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.**|
|**EXT.P13:**|**COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.**|
||**35407/2007 DTD.11/12/2007.**|
|**EXT.P14:**|**COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DTD.11/4/2008.**|
|**EXT.P15:**|**COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS**|
||**AS WELL AS THEIR ASSOCIATION DTD.28/2/2011.**|
|**EXT.P16:**|**COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF**|
||**DIRECTORS ON 18/2/2012.**|
||**(........2)**|
**WP(C).No. 7858 of 2011 (F)**
**-: 2 :-**
**EXT.P17: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.6047/2010 DTD.11/4/2012.**
## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-**
**EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER DTD.11.4.2008.**
**( TRUE COPY )**
**PA TO JUDGE.**
_**Kvs/-**_
## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.**
= = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.7858 of 2011.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1[st] April, 2013.
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioners have retired from service of the first respondent on completion of 55 years of age which was the age of superannuation as per the service conditions.
2. This writ petition has been filed for a declaration that the retirement age has to be enhanced and fixed as 58 years on account of the policy of the Government. The first respondent has passed resolution to increase the retirement age, but by Ext.P14 order the Government has rejected the said proposal. It is stated that another decision has been taken by the Board as per Ext.P16 dated 18.2.2012, during the pendency of the writ petition. According to the petitioners, the said resolution was not considered by the Government.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied
**WP(C).No.7858/2011.**
2
upon the judgment of this Court in **Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C. Ltd.** (2007(2) KLT 917) and other judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court produced as Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P7. In all these cases directions were issued by this Court to fix the retirement age as 58 years. This Court in Ext.P7 judgment had relied upon the Division Bench judgment in **Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C. Ltd.** (2007(2) KLT 917) and found that the employees are entitled to the benefit of retirement age as 58 years and permitting the petitioners to continue in service till 58 years. In respect of those persons could not continue in service till 58 years, it was also directed that the petitioners in that case shall be reinstated in service. Further direction was given that the terminal benefits which was received shall be refunded. The last paragraph of Ext.P7 reads as follows:
“The petitioners in WP(C).Nos.6640, 22185, 22320 & 28335 of 2008 are also employees of the Kerala State Artisans Development Corporation Ltd. They filed these writ
**WP(C).No.7858/2011.**
3
petitions on the eve of their attaining 55 years. Although interim orders enabling them to continue beyond 55 years were not granted, this Court had made it clear that the disbursement of their retirement benefits will be subject to the result of these writ petitions and accordingly, they retired from the service. Now that the writ petitions are allowed and as the petitioners are entitled to continue in service till 58 years, it is directed that the petitioners shall be reinstated in service. It is made clear that if terminal benefits have been received by the petitioners, such benefits will be refunded to the Corporation. It is made clear that although the period during which they are kept out will be treated as continuous service, they will not be entitled to be paid salary or other allowances for the said period.”
4. Counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent supporting the view taken to increase the retirement age. Counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent contending that the petitioners are direct recruitees coming under the purview of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and they are due to retire at the age of 55 years. It is also stated that it being a Government policy not to enhance the
**WP(C).No.7858/2011.**
**==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==**
retirement age of employees the proposal was rejected. It is not in dispute that such persons who are covered by the pension scheme of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act would be entitled to full pension only if their retirement age is 58 years. There is no dispute that the first respondent Corporation is running in profit and there is nothing wrong in increasing the age of retirement as 58 as resolved by the first respondent Corporation. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the following directions are issued:
- (i) Ext.P14 is set aside.
- (ii) The petitioners are entitled to continue in service till 58 years and they shall be reinstated in service.
- (iii) The terminal benefits received by the petitioners shall be refunded to the first respondent.
- (iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled for the salary and other allowances for the period during which they are kept out of service.
5
## **WP(C).No.7858/2011.**
- (v) There shall be a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P15 in terms of the above directions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE,**
(Judge)
**Kvs/-**