This writ appeal arises from a dispute over land assignment affecting the St. Thomas College, a 1950s‑established aided institution in Puliyanoor village, Kottayam. A misdescription in resurvey records had shown a public pathway as part of the college land; the college sought assignment of 17.5 cents of that land. On 15 September 2015, Ext. P4 directed the assignment of the identified land to the college, with the Pala Municipality’s consent (Ext. P5). The High Court had earlier directed the District Collector to conclude the assignment process within two months without insisting on a separate NOC from the Director of Local Self Government. On 14 August 2020, Ext. P9 cancelled Ext. P4 on grounds of procedural irregularities, triggering WP(C) No. 19818/2020 which eventually led to this WA 516/23. The State and District Collector argued that Ext. P4 was validly issued under Rule 21(2) of the Rules 1995, allowing land assignment in public interest subject to conditions and municipal consent; they contended Annex R2(a) (G.O. 2011) could not completely bar assignments to educational institutions and that the government retains power to act under the rules. The Respondents argued that the government’s 2011 policy precludes such assignments and stressed the need for proper procedure and legal compliance. The matter turned on whether Ext. P9 was a valid exercise of power and whether the government could assign land to educational institutions consistent with policy and procedure. The Allahabad High Court disposed of the WA after withdrawing Ext. P9 and clarified that the government’s power to assign land requires adherence to guidelines. The bench did not express a definitive ruling on the government’s power, leaving the petitioner to pursue remedies if aggrieved.
This is a First Appeal from Order filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) CPC, challenging two orders dated 23 December 2021 passed by the Sub Court, Hosdurg, in O.S. No. 19 of 2017 arising from a money-recovery suit. The appellant, P. K. Fathima, a 72-year-old single defendant, sought to set aside an ex parte decree dated 20 July 2018 and filed RPIA No. 8 of 2020 along with I.A. No. 1 of 2020 to condone a delay of 832 days. The Sub Court rejected both applications as lacking bona fides. The respondents claimed the appellant was served with summons (Ext. B1), participated in execution proceedings, and only belatedly sought relief, showing no genuine reason for delay. The High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, applying liberal principles for condonation of delay, with reference to the elastic interpretation of “sufficient cause” in Katiji and the liberal, reasoned approach in Esha Bhattacharjee, while recognizing that delay cannot defeat substantive justice. The Court found compelling the appellant’s age and illness but also required payment of costs. It directed setting aside the decree against the appellant upon payment of Rs. 10,000 to the first respondent within two weeks, and remanded the matter for contest and disposal within four months, while preserving the attachment against the property and leaving the decree against others intact.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2227 OF 2023 This bail application, B.A. No. 2227 of 2023, concerns Nishad H., the second accused in Crime No.271/2023 of Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam. The prosecution alleges that on the night of 21 February 2023, aided by others, the accused abused and assaulted the defacto complainant with intent to murder, resulting in serious injuries including nasal bone fracture and fractures of facial bones, as evidenced by medical certificates. The offences alleged include sections 294(b) (obscene acts or words), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with weapon), and 307 r/w 34 IPC. The applicant has 14 prior criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 22 February 2023. The defense argued bail due to the period of custody and affidavits from the defacto complainant and another injured person stating that the dispute has been settled and there is no intention to proceed. They contended that the offence is non-heinous; the matter settled; under Apex Court guidance, settlement cannot negate the seriousness of a 307 IPC offence or justify bail. The prosecution emphasized the gravity of the injuries, the use of weapons, and the accused’s antecedents, including other serious offences and prior detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Act. On assessment of the materials, the court found the allegations serious with medical support and the presence of multiple prior crimes; concluding that release would be inappropriate, the court dismissed the bail application.
This criminal appeal challenges an acquittal under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. in a cheque-bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Abdul Gafoor, the complainant in ST No. 234/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamangalam, contends that the accused borrowed Rs. 5,00,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured for Funds Insufficient. After service of legal notice and filing of the chief affidavit, the trial court, on 06 January 2020, acquitted the accused, finding the complainant’s evidence lacking in probative value because neither the appellant nor his counsel were present for cross-examination on that date. The appellant submitted that the absence on a single date should not extinguish his right to prosecute and that the court should provide a second opportunity when the complainant had been represented on previous dates and had timely filed Exts. P2–P5. The High Court notes that the appellant appeared on earlier dates and had properly filed the affidavit in lieu of examination on 02 September 2019, and that the absence on 06 January 2020 was only for one day. Relying on Cauvery Build Tech (P) Ltd. v. Aneesh James and another, the court held that ordinarily a second opportunity should be granted. Consequently, the trial court’s acquittal was unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for a fresh trial. The criminal appeal is allowed.
USHA, the revision petitioner, challenges a conviction under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act recorded against her by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranny, and upheld by the Additional District and Sessions (Adhoc) Judge Fast Track Court II, Pathanamthitta. The incidents arose on 18.08.1990 when 15 litres of wash was found at her residence (House No. 268, Vadasserikkara), leading to seizure and sampling. The trial court convicted her and sentenced six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court agreed the conviction was justified but held that a fine should also have been part of the sentence. In revision, the High Court emphasizes its limited scope: it cannot reweigh evidence, but it can correct wholly unreasonable or perverse decisions or when relevant materials were ignored. The petitioner contends she was merely present in the house where the wash was seized and that ownership of the house and the husband’s involvement were not established; she argues that possession was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and cites Gunwantlal for the distinction between possession and ownership. The Court, relying on Ravi C. v. State of Kerala and Santhosh v. State of Kerala, holds that presence in a dwelling does not establish possession, and that the chain of custody and link-evidence to the sample were not proven (no independent witnesses examined, no specimen seal details, and delays in forwarding materials). The High Court ultimately sets aside the conviction, acquits the petitioner, and directs her release, cancelling bail.
Baiju Varghese, accused No.3 in CC No.1366/2016, approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in light of the acquittal of co-accused. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Changanasserry, had initially registered CC No.310/2008; due to the accused’s non-appearance, the case was split and the co-accused were acquitted (Annexure D). The petitioner contends that continuing the prosecution against him would be an abuse of process because the substratum of the prosecution has been shattered by these acquittals. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, arguing that the petitioner must face trial and that this Court may not invoke its powers under Section 482. The Court recalls Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police, Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala, and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala, adopting the position that where the substratum of the case is undermined by acquittal of co-accused, it may be appropriate to quash the proceedings. Citing the trial court record, it notes there is no clinching evidence, material contradictions among key witnesses, and improper/incomplete documentation (e.g., absence of a Supreme Court order). The Court concludes that continued prosecution would constitute abuse of process and a judicial waste of time, and thus allows the Crl.MC, quashing CC 1366/2016 against the petitioner.
Sobha P.K., a retired head teacher with 34 years of service, challenges non-disbursement of her death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) of Rs 14,00,000 despite retirement on 31.05.2021. While pension had been sanctioned and paid, the DCRG was withheld on the ground of alleged liability arising from a misused bill book recovered by the inspection wing from her office and an audit objection. Ext.P2, Government Order G.O(P) No.67/2020/Fin (27.05.2020), ordered disbursement of DCRG on execution of a bond for possible dues if any in audit objection; Ext.P1 is the verification report relating to the petitioner’s pension order. The petitioner argued that liability could not be assessed within retirement, and under Rule 116(5) of Part III KSR, efforts must be made to assess and adjust recoverable dues within one year; if not, the amount should be refunded or disbursed. She relied on Secretary to Government and Others v. C.Vijayan (a Division Bench decision) to support immediate disbursement. The respondents admit retirement date and non-finalisation of liability; they contend withholding is justified until liability is fixed. The Court, relying on the cited precedents and the KSR provisions, holds that where liability is not fixed within one year, the DCRG must be paid, and directs expeditious disbursement, keeping open recovery if liability is later fixed, in accordance with law.
This is a Rent Control Revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, filed by the tenant (revision petitioner) challenging an eviction order. The Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff, Kannur) had allowed eviction under Section 11(3) on grounds of bonafide need to shift the petition schedule shop and an adjoining room for use as a godown for the landlord’s sanitary business. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge‑IV, Thalassery) confirmed the eviction order, while the petitioner’s challenge remained to press for eviction under Section 11(2)(b), which was not pressed at the trial. In the revision petition before the Kerala High Court, the tenant contended that vacant rooms in the same building (three rooms) were available for use as godown, which would render eviction under the first proviso to Section 11(3) unnecessary; he argued the landlord’s need was not bonafide and that there was no lack of alternative accommodation. The landlord contended the arrears of rent from 01.03.2015 and the need to shift the godown to the petition schedule shop and adjacent room justified eviction. The High Court reaffirmed the well‑established principle that Section 20 revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate power to re‑weigh evidence, citing precedents such as Rukmini Amma Saradamma, T. Sivasubramaniam, Ubaiba, Hindustan Petroleum, and Thankamony Amma. It did not disturb the concurrent findings of fact and dismissed the revision petition, while granting nine months’ time to surrender vacant possession on conditions including arrears deposit and compliance with licensing requirements.
Taliparamba Trichambaram Kanjirangad Devaswom (TTK Devaswom) filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mandamus to direct the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, and the Assistant Commissioner, Kasaragod, to initiate criminal action against Sree Krishna Seva Samithi and its members for alleged illegal collection of money in the name of the Trichambaram Temple, a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board. The petition relies on documents (Ext.P11/Ext.P12) pointing to unlawful fundraising by the Samithi and on prior court orders (Ext.P10) acknowledging that the Samithi had been ousted from temple premises. The case discusses the 2nd respondent’s Rules and Regulations (Ext.R2(a)), including recruitment aims, fundraising provisions, and office arrangements, and contrasts them with statutory provisions under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1951, especially Section 14, which provides for Temple Advisory Committees and requires alignment with existing customs. The court grounds its decision in the statutory framework and a previous Division Bench decision (Payyannur case) that temple governance must be conducted without improper interference by private committees. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition, directing that if interference occurs the Executive Officer may seek modification of Ext.R2(a) to ensure proper governance, while noting that the Samithi’s possession has already been taken over by the Devaswom.
Ashik, the 8th accused in Crime No.1015 of 2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam, filed B.A. No. 2121 of 2023 seeking regular bail. The application came up before a single judge of the Kerala High Court on 23 March 2023. The prosecution alleges that on 23 December 2022 the accused trespassed into the defacto complainant’s office—Brawny Brute Family Studio Health and Boutique Clinic—beating the complainant and staff with a hammer and wooden stick, forcing the signing of a cheque, and robbing items including a car (KL-40-L 3141), cash, gold, documents, a laptop, and other articles valued at about Rs.14.8 lakh. It is further alleged that the assailants poured salt at the office to mimic MDMA and took photographs intended to portray the complainant as a drug seller, threatening to use those images against him. The defacto complainant sustained injuries; clinical notes recorded an injury to the peri-orbital region and CT scan suggested possible undisplaced fractures in the roof-medial wall of the right orbit. The police registered offences under IPC Sections 452, 324, 328, 395, 427 and 506(ii) read with Section 212 IPC. The petitioner had been in custody since 15 January 2023. The State argued for denial of bail given the seriousness of the offences, while the defense contended the investigation was nearing completion and custody was unnecessary. After scrutiny of the case diary and medical evidence, and noting earlier anticipatory bail orders in related matters, the court granted regular bail on 23 March 2023 with conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent prejudice to the investigation and trial.
O.P.(CAT).NO.111/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.61/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.64/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.66/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.67/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.90/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.92/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.95/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.98/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.107/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.154/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.187/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.213/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.214/2020; O.P.(CAT).NO.216/2020 These connected O.P.(CAT) petitions arise from retired central government employees seeking pensionary admissibility for annual increment. The core issue: whether a government servant who retires on the last working day of the preceding month and whose annual increment becomes due on the first day of the succeeding month is entitled to sanction of that increment for pension and gratuity. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, relies on Fundamental Rules (FR) 17, FR 24 and FR 56(a) and CCS (Pension) Rules (Rules 3, 5, 14, 33 and 34), along with Rule 83 and Article 151 of the CS Regulations, and the General Clauses Act for time calculations. The Tribunal had largely followed the Madras High Court’s P. Ayyamperumal decision, which the High Court distinguishes. The Court upholds a line of authority including the Andhra Pradesh Full Bench decision in Principal Accountant General v. C. Subba Rao and subsequent Kerala/other High Court decisions (e.g., Union of India v. K.R. Sanal Kumar) to hold that the increment, though due after retirement, is payable in pension computations where the employee ceases to be a government servant on the last day and the increment becomes payable from the next day. Consequently, the O.P.(CAT)s are allowed and the Tribunal’s orders are set aside.
CRL.R.P. No. 1275 of 2012 Chacko s/o Mathai, the revision petitioner, challenges the conviction under Abkari Act, sections 8(1) and 8(2), arising from possession of 15 litres of arrack detected on 25.03.2002. He was initially convicted by the trial court and the conviction was upheld on appeal, albeit with a reduced sentence. This Kerala High Court revision, decided on 06 December 2023, scrutinizes whether due process and evidentiary safeguards were observed, particularly concerning the seizure particulars and the chain of custody. The defense contends several defects: Ext. P1 seizure mahazar lacks specimen impressions of the seal; Exts. P11 and P12 fail to demonstrate tamper-proof transmission of the sample; unexplained two-day delay in the sample reaching the chemical examiner; delayed scene mahazar and unusually long gaps before witnesses were questioned. The prosecution argues that the record supports possession and the offences, and that minor irregularities do not vitiate the judgment. The court traverses key precedents emphasizing the necessity of seal-impression verification, tamper-proof despatch, and timely investigation, citing Sasidharan, Bhaskaran, Krishnadas, Chandran, Kumaran, and Moothedath Sivadasan. Ultimately, the court finds material defects and unexplained delays fatal to the prosecution’s case, and acquits the petitioner by setting aside the conviction and sentence, with bail cancelled and the petitioner released. The revision petition is allowed.
This Matrimonial Appeal, Mat.Appeal No.92 of 2018, challenges an ex parte decree pronounced by the Family Court, Palakkad in O.P. No.203 of 2012, and the subsequent I.A. Nos.1231 and 1232 of 2013. The appellants seek to condone an inordinately long delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, arguing attempts at amicable settlement and that the respondent initiated execution proceedings during ongoing negotiations. The respondent counters that there was no mediation and that the execution petition was filed for non-compliance with the decree; she also asserts that the Court did not grant permission for filing the appeal as claimed. The Family Court had already considered the matter and dismissed both I.A. Nos.1231 (condonation under Section 5) and 1232 (setting aside decree) dated 09.10.2014. The High Court, after hearing both sides, regards the delay as inordinate and inordinate delays attract prejudice, mandating a strict approach. Relying on Katiji’s principle that “sufficient cause” is elastic yet to be applied in the ends of justice, and on Esha Bhattacharjee’s liberal-justice framework, the Court also notes the liberal criteria in short delays. It cites Rafeek v. K. Kamarudeen to endorse a balanced approach. Ultimately, the Court holds there is no substantial justification to condone the delay and dismisses the CM application and the appeal.
Rasiya P.M., the petitioner, filed a writ petition in this Division Bench challenging the detention of her father under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Ext.P1, the detention order under Section 3(1) r/w 3(2), was issued on 07-12-2022 and executed on 14-12-2022, with government approval on 26-12-2022. The petitioner contends that the order is illegal for non‑compliance with Section 3(3), which requires the Authorized Officer to forthwith report the detention to the Government and the Director General of Police with copies of the order and documents bearing on the matter. The petitioner also argues there is no live link between the last prejudicial activity, which occurred on 17-06-2022, and the detention order issued five months and twenty‑four days later. The respondents insist that Section 3(3) was complied with on 07-12-2022 and that the later communication of 22-12-2022 related to execution, not to Section 3(3). The High Court examined the evidence, noting the absence of pleadings on the critical date and accepting that there was a delay in issuing the order. It held that the delay severed the live link and that the explanatory material in the order was unsatisfactory. The court quashed the detention order and directed the detainee’s release forthwith, directing prison authorities to implement the order. The court also observed that detention under the Act curtails fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
R.S.A.No.39 of 2021; R.S.A.No.64 of 2021 These Regular Second Appeals (R.S.A. Nos. 39/2021 and 64/2021) are heard together by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. They arise from common facts rooted in two suits relating to easement rights over a pathway (plaint B schedule) across a dominant A schedule property and its servient heritage, culminating in a chain of judgments: the Munsiff’s Court, Koyilandy (O.S. Nos. 163/1989 and 216/1989); the trial court judgment dated 21.12.1996; the Additional District and Sessions Court’s common appellate judgment dated 20.06.2005 in A.S. Nos. 14/1997 and 20/1997; and a 2019 remand by this Court to decide the easement question in light of Cherootty @ Balan v. Velayudhan Nair. The remand directed the First Appellate Court to consider whether the plaintiff could prove user of the ridge as of right, per Section 15 of the Easement Act, and the practice that ridges in paddy fields do not automatically create easement rights unless converted into a road. After remand, the First Appellate Court again dismissed the suits in part, holding lack of proof of as-of-right user for the requisite 20 years and noting the ridge’s character as paddy field (later reclaimed). The High Court, on review of the remand scope and evidence, held the remand and the appellate findings proper and dismissed both appeals, with no costs and pending applications closed.
This Kerala High Court judgment addresses matrimonial disputes arising from OP 1335/2017 of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor and connected Matrimonial Appeals. The marriage between Bino Joseph and Neena Cherian ended amid accusations of substantial misappropriation and patrimony claims. The Family Court decreed in favor of the wife on two principal reaches: a patrimonial claim of Rs 8.5 lakh and a misappropriation claim of Rs 1,46,25,270, while rejecting the wife’s claim for Rs 4 lakh on movables and other reliefs, and dismissing the husband’s counterclaim. The husband’s counterclaim was reduced to a net of Rs 1,65,30,665 after adjusting amounts already paid by the wife. On appeal, Mat.Appeal No.179 of 2022 (wife) and No.201 of 2022 (husband) along with Mat.Appeal No.495 of 2022 (husband) challenge the Family Court judgment; OP(FC) No.285/2023 seeks stay by accepting security. The High Court, in a two-judge bench, largely affirms the Family Court’s disposition, holding that certain payments and transactions between spouses cannot be treated as patrimony under Section 7(1) (explanation (d)) of the Family Courts Act, citing Philipose v. Sunil Jacob for support. It also notes that the security offered by the respondent did not satisfy stay requirements. Consequently, the appeals and the OP(FC) are dismissed, with no order as to costs. The decision emphasizes the narrow scope of patrimony in matrimonial disputes and the need to prove entrustments with documentary certainty.
I.T.A.No.120/2019 & I.T.A.No.11/2022 These ITA appeals (I.T.A. Nos. 120/2019 and 11/2022) arise from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, concerning the entitlement of a Labour Co-operative Society to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the IT Act for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The appellant-society, registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, operates for the welfare of toddy tappers and for tapping, pooling and marketing of toddy within Nileshwar. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claiming it was not made in a valid return, as required by Section 80A(5). The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following a Division Bench decision in Peravoor Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham (Ker) which had held against the assessee. The Kerala High Court, in a common judgment, held that the deduction under 80P becomes conditional after the 2018 amendment to 80AC, requiring the claim to be made in a return filed within the due date under Section 139(1). It held that belated returns cannot be treated as valid for the purposes of Section 80P, and that Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. was per incuriam and cannot be relied upon. The court answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for both years, and disposed of the ITA appeals accordingly, denying the deduction. The bench then recorded division as Division Bench, with the result that the appeals are decided against the assessee on the 80P claim.
The petitioners, a group of members of the Kattunayakan Scheduled Tribe, live in Pulimunda colony, Karulai, within the Mathankunnu Forest Village, Malappuram. They rely on the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) to secure in situ forest rights and rehabilitation after displacement reportedly caused by a 2003 government evictions justified by landslide risk and the Integrated Tribal Development Project (ITDP). They claim to have occupied and cultivated land exceeding 100 acres across Pulimunda and Mundakadavu settlements, with historic marks such as huts and graveyards attesting to continuous habitation. Although the Government sanctioned 18 patta titles under ITDP in 2009, many families were relocated to Mundakadavu river puramboke and later to Kanjirakkadavu, with inadequate or improper allotments. The petition challenges the validity of titles granted to those 18 and asserts that procedures under the FRA and its Rules (Rules 11(1)(a); 12A) were ignored, and that patta issuance and surveys were flawed, violating Section 3(1)(m), 4(3), 4(6) and 6(1). They seek either in situ rehabilitation or a comparable alternative land extent at Pulimunda, and the issuance of Records of Rights in line with the Act. The respondents contend Pulimunda does not exist in Forest Department records and argue eligible rights are limited to the 18 patta holders, requiring strict compliance with FRA procedures. The Court ultimately directs verification of land extent, consideration of pending FRA claims, and timely compliance with a six-month deadline, while emphasizing Article 21 protections for tribal livelihoods.
Vasudevan, the accused in a Kerala Abkari Act case, challenges the conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram, and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Court. The prosecution alleged possession of 5 litres of illicit arrack on 5 August 1996 in Muttathara, Thiruvananthapuram. The trial court convicted him under Section 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act, sentencing three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000, with a default three months’ imprisonment. In appeal, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. In revision, the petitioner contends that no arrest memo or intimation was produced, that Ext.P2 seizure mahazar records only seizure and does not mention sample collection, sealing, or forwarding note; no specimen seal is affixed; there is no forwarding note; these lacunae render the prosecution’s case doubtful. The High Court recognizes that revisional interference is limited but emphasizes strict compliance with Abkari Act formalities and evidentiary chain. Citing Basu and multiple Kerala precedents (Baburaj, Ramankutty, Rafeeque, Udayan, Vijayan, Nadarajan, Gopalan, Prakasan, Ramachandran, Moothedath Sivadasan, Sasidharan) the court notes that noncompliance with arrest formalities and missing forwarding notes undermine the link between accused, contraband, sample, and lab analysis. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted; bail bond cancelled; liberty granted; deposits, if any, refunded as per law.
W.A. Nos. 830/2017 & 533/2020 This is a consolidated Writ Appeal from the Kerala High Court challenging Ext.P6 (dated 07.05.2015) which rejected the demand to raise the retirement age of managerial personnel in Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. from 58 to 60 years. The Company’s Board of Directors had recommended increasing the retirement age to 60, aligning with workmen who retire at 60, and in line with trends in several state-level PSUs. The Government, however, rejected the proposal, citing a policy stance not to extend retirement age for managerial staff in this public sector undertaking. The petitioners and third-party appellants argued that this creates discriminatory disparity: workers enjoy 60 years, managers do not; other entities in the public domain have adopted 60 years for retirement; the policy appears inconsistent with accepted practice and with the Board’s own recommendation. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions, upholding the Government’s policy decision under Article 226 of the Constitution and relying on prior Kerala and Apex Court authorities that policy decisions in retirement-age matters are not ordinarily interfered with. On appeal, the Division Bench concurs, noting that the Government’s conscious decision is binding on the company, and there is no perverse or discriminatory flaw justifying interference. The appeals are dismissed.
