PASCAL BYLON K.I. v STATE OF KERALA AND THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD.

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ``` W.A. NO.830 OF 2017 ``` ``` (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 7017/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA) ``` ## `APPELLANT/PETITIONER:` ``` PASCAL BYLON K.I., SENIOR OFFICE(STORES), THE TRAVANCORE- COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KONNULLY HOUSE, MATHAI MANJOORAN ROAD, COCHIN:682 018. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY SMT.AISWARYA KRISHNAN SRI.V.N.RAJAPPAN ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES(H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683 501. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SR. ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2023, ALONG ``` ``` WITH WA.533/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 2 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## `W.A. NO.533 OF 2020` ``` (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7017/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA) ``` ## `APPELLANTS/THIRD PARTIES:` ``` 1HARIDAS R., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN.M.S., AMBILY HOUSE, NORTH GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 141. 2SOBHANA.P.A., AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.SASIDHARAN V.K., VELANPARAMBIL HOUSE, JVRA-46, JUBILY ROAD, EDATHALA P.O., PUKKATTUPADY, ERNAKULAM- 683 561. 3VIKRAMAN.P.R., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN PILLAI.V.K., PRANAVAM, SNRA-18, SREE NARAYANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 024. BY ADVS. R.SANJITH SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH SRI.B.R.ANEES SMT.P.S.ANJU ``` ``` RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-4: ``` - `1 PASCAL BYLON K.I., SENIOR OFFICER (STORES), THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KONNULLY HOUSE, MATHAI MANJOORAN ROAD, COCHIN-682 018.` - `2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (H) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` - `4 THE TRAVANCORE - COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.` - `5 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE TRAVANCORE - COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM-683 501. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2023, ALONG WITH ``` ``` WA.830/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 3 ## JUDGMENT _(Dated: 9[th] March, 2023)_ ## Basant Balaji, J. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.830 of 2017 was the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7017 of 2016. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.533 of 2020 are 3[rd] parties. They sought leave of this Court to file the writ appeal and leave was granted as per the order dated 12.03.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2020. 2. The writ petitions were filed challenging Ext.P6 letter dated 07.05.2015, whereby the request for enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 was rejected. The petitioners as well as the appellants in Writ Appeal No.533 of 2020 were working in the managerial cadre of the 3[rd] respondent. The Board of Directors of the company in its meeting held on 05.12.2014 resolved to recommend to the Government of Kerala to enhance the retirement age of the managerial personnel from 58 to 60 years. The Government rejected the said request and informed that a policy decision has been taken, not to enhance the retirement age of the employees in the public W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 4 sector undertaking. The case of the petitioners is that the retirement age of workmen in the same establishment is 60 years, whereas that of managerial personnel is limited to 58 years, therefore there is a disparity among the employees and it is discriminatory. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Government. 3. Heard counsel on either side. 4. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Government has recently approved the proposal of Travancore Titanium Products Limited, another public-sector undertaking concerning managerial personnel, and the age of superannuation was enhanced from 58 to 60 years on the recommendation made by the meeting of the Board of Directors of that company. The petitioners are the employees of a similarly situated public-sector undertaking enjoying the same privilege and benefits as that of Travancore Titanium Products Limited and are also entitled to the same treatment. The learned counsel further argues W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 5 that in a large number of state-level public enterprises, the age of retirement of their employees is enhanced to 60 years and the Board of Directors of the 3[rd] respondent company has also decided to enhance the same which the Government should not have declined. Further, the workers in the same establishment are allowed to continue in service till the age of 60 years whereas those working in the managerial cadre have to retire at the age of 58 years and therefore this disparity among the employees under the 3[rd] respondent company. 5. As far as the workmen category in the company is concerned, they are governed by certified standing orders, which provide for retirement at the age of 60 years. But the appellants being in the managerial cadre, are governed by separate standing orders, which state that they have to retire at the age of 58 years. The question that came up before the learned single Judge was, whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government on the ground that the retirement age of certain public sector undertakings has been W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 6 enhanced to 60 years. The learned single Judge relied on the decision reported in _State of Kerala v. Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees Union [I.L.R. 2016 (2) Kerala 81] ,_ wherein this court upheld the decision of the Government rejecting the recommendation of the Board of Directors of Kerala Land Development Corporation for enhancement of retirement age. 6. The 3[rd] respondent company is a Government of Kerala undertaking and it is bound to accept the decision of the Government. The rejection of the enhancement of age from 58 years to 60 years for persons in the managerial cadre has been accepted by the company. The petitioner claimed benefits on par with those of certain statutory bodies. The employees of the statutory bodies cannot be compared with the employees of the 3[rd] respondent. The standing orders in respect of the workmen and respect of managerial employees are different as both are two classes of employees. It cannot be said that since the workers are allowed to continue till the age of 60 years, the same treatment has to be meted out to the employees in the managerial cadre because both are governed by W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 7 different standing orders. In _K.Nagaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1985 (1) SCC 523]_ , the Apex Court held that the policy issue like the age of retirement is not liable to be interfered with by the Courts in judicial review. The counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in _Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C Ltd. [2007 (2) KLT 917]_ , but in view of the judgment in _Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees Union ’s case_ cited (supra), it cannot be said that there is any discrimination. The workers and managerial employees cannot be grouped for retirement age alone. The Government has taken a conscious decision not to increase the age of retirement of managerial persons in the 3[rd] respondent company. It is a policy decision of the Government that this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should refrain from interfering unless it is perverse. We have gone through the judgment of the learned single Judge, and the learned single Judge has clearly distinguished the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner to contend that interference is permissible in a policy decision. The learned single Judge repelled the contention and relied on the judgment of the Apex W.A.Nos.830/2017 & 533/2020 **==> picture [9 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Court as well as of this court and has held that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the Government, rejecting the request for enhancement of the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. We fully concur with the judgment of the learned single Judge and the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _K. Nagaraj’s_ case cited (supra) as well as a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in _Kerala Land Development Corporation Employees Union’s case_ cited (supra). The writ appeals fail and the same is dismissed. _Sd/-_ S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE _Sd/-_ BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss