Kerala High Court
Rajan.K.R vs State Of Kerala on 12 August, 2021
WA No.1035/2021 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
Thursday, the 12th day of August 2021 / 21st Sravana, 1943
WA NO. 1035 OF 2021
AGAINST ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 IN WP(C)NO. 15181/2021 OF THIS COURT.
---
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RAJAN K.R.,AGED 60 YEARS,S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI,SHYLAJA MANDIRAM,
CHENDHAPUR, DECENT JUNCTION P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN- 691 577.
BY ADV.SRI.B.RENJITH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1.STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL SECURITY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN- 695 001.
2.KERALA EX-SERVICEMEN WELFARE AND REHABILITATION CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KEXCON, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
3.KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN- 695 004.
4.THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB (ELECTRICAL CIRCLE OFFICE),
KOLLAM,KOLLAM-691001.
BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
cirucmstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to pass an order commanding the respondents to reinstate the appeallant in
service as on the date of filing the Writ Petition on 28.7.2021, subject
to the the result of the Writ Appeal.
This Writ Appeal coming on for admission along with connected case
on 12.08.2021 upon perusing the appeal memorandum, the court on the same
day passed the following:
P.T.O.
WA No.1035/2021 2/6
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A.BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. Nos. 1035 & 1038 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned common order dated 30.7.2021 in respective
WP(C) Nos. 15181 & 15205 of 2021]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2021
ORDER
We are apprised by Sri.B.Renjith Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants in these cases that this Court
has already admitted a similar case in W.A.No.1000/2021 [arising
out of the very same impugned common judgment dated 30.7.2021 in
WP(C) No. 15216/2021], and that this Court has also passed an
interim order in the said case. The said interim order dated
9.8.2021 rendered by this Court in W.A.No.1000/2021 reads as
follows:
"Admit Writ Appeal. Sri. R.S.Kalkura, learned Standing Counsel for
Kerala Ex-servicemen Welfare & Rehabilitation Corporation has taken
notice for R2, Sri. N.Sathish, learned Standing Counsel for K.S.E.B has
taken notice for R3 and R4 & learned Senior Government Pleader has
taken notice for R1 State of Kerala.
2. The Registry to show the name of the above counsel in the cause
list. Service complete.
3. Sri B.Renjith Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant would
point out that the impugned action is on the basis of Section 10(1)(v) of
the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 which prescribes
an upper age limit of 65 years for a security personnel. In the instant
case, the petitioner is only 61 years of age and has 4 more years to go
to complete the upper age limit of 65. Further that on the basis of the
above said action, even a Security Guard like the appellant, who has
not completed the upper age limit of 65, is also sought to be disturbed.
4. It is seen from the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in the
W.P(C) (see page 26 of paper book) that the age of the writ
WA No.1035/2021 3/6
W.A. Nos. 1035 & 1038 of 2021
..2..
petitioner/writ appellant is shown as 61 years. Hence it appears that
since the appellant has not completed the age of 65 years as of now and
so there may not be any legal necessity to disturb his appointment solely
on the basis of the upper age limit, which is 65 years. Hence it is ordered
that the service of the appellant as Security Guard in the respondent
K.S.E.B on the basis of the sponsorship or deployment made by the 2 nd
respondent Corporation, shall not be terminated from service on
account of the above said upper age limit issues. We are now apprised
by Sri B.Renjith Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant that
immediately after rendering of the impugned judgment by the learned
Single Judge on 30.07.2021, the 4th respondent is not permitting the
petitioner to attend the duty. It is made clear that if the sole reason for
not permitting the petitioner to attend the duty is on account of the
upper age limit issues, then he shall be permitted to work as Security
Guard.
5. Further it is ordered that Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned Standing
Counsel for the Kerala Ex-servicemen Welfare & Rehabilitation
Corporation will get specific instructions from R2 as to the reason for
the impugned action against the appellant herein and also as to whether
the appellant is now aged only 61 years, as claimed by him.
6. The interim order will be in force for a period of one month."
2. Now, it is submitted by Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned
Standing Counsel for the Kerala Ex-Servicemen Welfare and
Rehabilitation Corporation, appearing for R-2 herein that though
the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, framed by
the Parliament, prescribe an upper age limit of 65 years for
engagement for security personnel, a specific contract has been
entered into between the respondent Corporation and the
respondent KSEB, whereby it was stipulated that the security
personnel deployed by the respondent Corporation will not cross
the upper age of 60 years, instead of 65 years. That, it is
WA No.1035/2021 4/6
W.A. Nos. 1035 & 1038 of 2021
..3..
contractual provision and that the respondent Corporation has a
freedom of contract to stipulate such a provision and enter into a
contract with the respondent KSEB, and provision in the abovesaid
Central Act is only an outer limit for the upper age, etc.
3. Per contra,Sri.B.Renjith Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in these cases submits that the
Parliament has framed the abovesaid legislation and the specific
legislative policy declared by the Parliament in the said enactment
is that the upper age limit of security personnel is 65 years, and
that Ex-servicemen may come back after their military service only
in the late 40s or so, and the said provision in the abovesaid
Central Enactment is a beneficial provision made by the
Parliament to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of
security personnel, including Ex-servicemen who are engaged as
security personnel.
4. After hearing both sides we are of the view that we
have only passed an ad-interim order in W.A.No.1000/2021.
The objections of the respondents could be considered at the
appropriate stage. As of now, since, we have already passed an
WA No.1035/2021 5/6
W.A. Nos. 1035 & 1038 of 2021
..4..
ad-interim order in a similar case, it is only fair that the same
ad-interim order is passed in theses cases as well. It is brought to
our notice that the appellants in W.A. Nos. 1035 & 1038 of 2021,
are now aged only 60 years & 61 years respectively, and they have
not crossed the abovesaid upper age limit of 65 years stipulated in
the Act. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the service of
the appellants herein as security guards in the respondent KSEB,
on the basis of sponsorship or deployment made by the
2nd respondent Corporation, shall not be terminated from service
on account of the abovesaid upper age limit issues, so long as they
have not completed the age of 65 years.
5. It was also pointed out that the 4th respondent is not
permitting the appellants to attend duty on account of the
abovesaid impugned stand, and hence it is made clear that the sole
reason for not permitting the appellants herein to attend duty is on
account of the abovesaid upper age limit issues, then shall be
permitted to provisionally continue as security guard. This order
will be in force for a period of 6 weeks.
6. The 2nd respondent Corporation and the 4th respondent
WA No.1035/2021 6/6
W.A. Nos. 1035 & 1038 of 2021
..5..
KSEB may file their affidavits or statements in the matter without
any further delay.
List these appeals along with W.A.No.1000/2021 on
17.9.2021.
H/O.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
MMG
12-08-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
