Sunil Kumar.A.S vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19786 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 23832 OF 2019
PETITIONER:

          SUNIL KUMAR.A.S
          AGED 56 YEARS
          S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, ALAYIL HOUSE, P.O. NEDUPUZHA, THRISSUR

          BY ADVS.
          R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
          SMT.R.RANJANIE
          SRI.M.ASHOK KINI



RESPONDENT/S:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

2 KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695003 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

3 THE EXPERT COMMITTEE FOR STUDY ON THE FORMULATION OF A COMMON FRAME WORK FOR PAY/WAGE REVISION IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING,S CONSTITUTED BY THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS(BPE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.BAIJURAJ (r2)

OTHER PRESENT:

GP PARVATHY KOTTOL

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 2

16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).3428/2020, 16442/2018, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 3428 OF 2020 PETITIONERS:

       1       BOBAN .A.G.
               AGED 45 YEARS

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

2 VINOD S.

DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

3 SALINI P.K.

PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

4 MANJUSHA K.K.

ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

5 SALIM K.S.

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

6 RAMESH M.

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

7 BALU K.K.

OVERSEER - II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

8 MANJULA C.K.

OVERSEER GRADE III, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

9 SHAJEENA K.A.

SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

10 PREETHY A.P.

W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 4

SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

11 SHAKKEER K.

ACCOUNTS OFFICER (I/C), KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

12 SUNIL V.G.

OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

13 KUNJU P.A.

ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

14 VENUGOPAL P.

ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

15 G. RAVI DEPUTY PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

16 MARIAMMA C. ANTONY SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

17 SHIBU K.Y.

DRIVER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

18 BEERAN AYAMPATH DRIVER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THRISSUR

19 RASHEEJA P.P.

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VADAKARA

20 RAJAN K.

LASCAR, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, VADAKARA

21 VALSAMMA V.K.

SECTION OFFICER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

22 SHEEJA M.

W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 5

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

23 SREEJITH C.C.

TYPIST GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

24 INDU V.

ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

25 REJITH RAGHAVAN DRIVER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

26 RIZWANA BAI ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

27 SUSMITHA K.S.

ASSISTANT GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

28 PREETHA R.G.

ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

29 BISINI RAMACHANDRAN V.

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER (I/C), KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

30 JAYASREE A.K.

SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

31 SUJA P.T.

ASSISTANT GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

32 SANTHOSH HEBBY JOHN CLERICAL ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

33 SUNITHAKUMARI K.

LASCAR / HELPER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

34 MUHAMMED IQBAL S.

W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 6

LASCAR / HELPER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

35 BINDU M.S.

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA

36 JAYAKUMAR G.

ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER (1/C), KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

37 ULLAS S.

CLERICAL ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

38 AJEEB A.V.

SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

39 ARUNDAS K.H.

ASSISTANT GRADE - II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

40 GOPAN S.

TYPIST GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

41 SUNIJA K.S.

PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

42 MESMER B.

ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

43 N.K. RADHAKRISHNAN OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

44 HASSINA BEEVI A.

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

45 HAREESH A.

OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 7

46 JISHA JAMES ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

47 SHEEBA TI, ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

48 RAGINI J.

OVERSEER GRADE II, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

49 JAYARANI G.

ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

50 RAJALEKSHMI T.

OVERSEER GRADE I, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

51 PATHROSE V.

PART - TIME SWEEPER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

52 SHOJI ANTONY K.G.

DRIVER - GR.I, OFFICE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA

53 SHAJI C.K.

PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM

54 MANI C.T.

DRIVER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM

55 REJIMOL P.S. ASSISTANT PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, N. PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM

BY ADVS.

P.N.MOHANAN SRI.C.P.SABARI SMT.AMRUTHA SURESH

RESPONDENTS:

W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

3 KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT COPRORATION LTD.

REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, MUSIUM BAINS COMPOUND, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003

4 EXPERT COMMITTEE FOR STUDY ON THE FORMATION OF COMMON FRAME WORK FOR PAY / WAGE REVISION IN PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKINGS, CONSTITUTED BY PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BAIJURAJ G., SC, KLDC LTD.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23832/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16442 OF 2018 PETITIONERS:

1 S.KUMARI CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER, KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA.

2 LAILA M PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,ALAPPUZHA.

BY ADVS.

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT,AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

2 KERALA STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED MUSEUM BAINS COMPOUND, KOWDIAR PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

BY ADVS.

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BAIJURAJ G., SC, KLDC LTD.

SHRI.BAIJURAJ G., SC, KLDC LTD.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).23832/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 23/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 10

COMMON JUDGMENT [WP(C) Nos.23832/2019, 3428/2020, 16442/2018]

The writ petitioners are employees of Kerala State Land

Development Corporation working in its various offices. The Kerala Land

Development Corporation Ltd. (KLDC Ltd. hereinafter) was formed in 1972,

under the Administrative Control of the Agricultural Department. The

retirement age of the employees of the KLDC was fixed as 56 years. They

are governed by EPF Pension Scheme 1995 . Under the EPF pension

scheme, a member will be eligible to get full pension on attaining the age of

58 years even though he retires at the age of 56. The eligibility criteria for

getting pension is that the member should have completed ten years of service

and should have reached 58 years. According to the petitioner, about 60

public sector undertakings are under the control of the State of Kerala, where

the age of the employees is either 58 years or 60 years. Government of

Kerala, introduced contributory pension scheme with effect from 1-4-2013, to

their employees and simultaneously revised their retirement age to 60 years

by making an amendment to the Kerala Service Rules. However, the

retirement age of persons engaged by KLDC Ltd., remain to be 56 years

which according to the employees, was discriminatory.

2. On 14/5/1998, the Board of Directors of KLDC by resolution dated W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 11

14/5/1998 resolved to enhance the age of retirement of the employees from 55

to 60 years. The resolution was turned down by the Agricultural Department

by an order dated 30/11/1999 on the ground that the Corporation was running

on loss. In the meanwhile, some of the employees approached this Court by

filing Writ Petition which was disposed of by judgment dated 4/6/2004, directing

the Government to take decision within four months. The request for

enhancement of retirement age was again turned down by the Government.

Petitioners now claim that, the Corporation is running on profit.

3. The Government by order dated 25/8/2017, constituted an expert

committee to study the wages of employees in all public sector undertakings

including their retirement age. The Board of Management of the KLDC, by a

resolution dated 23/11/2017, resolved to enhance the retirement age of the

employees to 58 years and submitted a proposal to the Government. The

Corporation also by their communication dated 16/1/2018 recommended the

Government to enhance the retirement age of the employees of the

Corporation.

4. In the meanwhile, some of the employees, who were retiring in the

interregnum, submitted a representation to the Government seeking

enhancement of the retirement age. Several employees had submitted

identical representations for enhancement of the retirement benefits and also

to extend the benefit to them, in case they retire during the pendency of the

writ petition.

5. Writ petitions indicate that, 13th and 21st petitioners in W.P. W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 12

(C)No.3428/2020 had retired on 30/4/2020, and 30/6/2020 respectively. The

sole petitioner in W.P(C) No.23832/2019 retired on 30/9/2019. In W.P.(C)

No.164442/2018, the date of retirement age of the petitioners were 31/5/2018

and 30/6/2018 respectively and on attaining the age of 56 years they also

retired. All the above persons retired pending the writ petitions and also

when the enhancement of retirement age was under active consideration of

the Corporation and the Government.

6. The prayer sought in all the writ petitions was for a direction to the

Corporation and the Government to consider the various representations

submitted by them. In W.P.(C) No.16442/2018, the prayer was to consider the

representations submitted as Exts.P2,P3 and P10 and to take appropriate final

decision by the respondents in the light of the various Government Orders

referred therein. Another prayer sought was to direct the Corporation to permit

the petitioners to continue in service, till a decision was taken on their

representation.

7. In W.P.(C) No.23832/2019, the relief sought was to declare that the

employees of the Corporation are entitled to similar treatment of enhancement

of their age of superannuation to 58 or 60 years as made applicable to other

corporations in the State, especially the Corporations under the Agricultural

Department of the State. Another prayer sought was to direct the Government

to approve the proposal of the Corporation for enhancement of the retirement

age.

8. In W.P.(C) No.3428/2020, the prayer sought by the petitioners was to W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 13

consider the representations in the light of the various Government orders

raising the retirement age of the employees of the Corporation to 58 years or

60 years. It was also requested that ,it may be declared that, they are entitled

to get enhancement of the retirement age as 58/60 years as the employees of

other statutory Corporations are retiring on attaining the age of 58 years or

60 years.

9. During the pendency of the proceedings, by notification dated

19/2/2021 issued by the Agricultural Department, the age of retirement in the

KLDC was enhanced from the age of 56 years to 58 years. It was stated in

the notification that, under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act 1952, for claiming pension and other entitlements, the

employees of KLDC have to wait till the attainment of age of 58 years. The

Government felt that it affects the financial stability and security of the

employees and considering the pendency of the writ petitions, the Government

resolved to increase the age of retirement to 58 years, so as to enable the

petitioners to secure EPF and MP Act benefits, at the time of retirement. This

notification was placed before the Court by the Government Pleader and a

copy of the above Government Order was also produced as Ext.P15 in W.P.

(C) No.3428/2020.

10. When the notification was brought to the notice of this Court, this

Court took note of the fact that few of the employees had retired, pending the

proceedings and prior to the enhancement of the retirement age. Hence, this

court by interim orders dated 23/2/2021 and 12/3/2021 directed the W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 14

Government to clarify whether the Government Order dated 19/2/2021

enhancing the age of retirement to 58 years could be extended only to

employees in service as on the date of notification or whether it would enure to

the benefit of the employees who had retired pending the writ petitions. The

Government was directed to revert and the case was posted for further

orders. Accordingly, by order dated 1/7/2021, the Government clarified that

the enhancement of retirement age from 56 years to 58 by notification dated

19/2/2021, would be effective from the date of notification and since 13 th and

21st petitioners retired prior to 19/2/2021, they are not entitled to the above

benefits. The above order is produced as Ext.P17 in W.P.(C) No.3428/2020.

11. When the above was brought to the notice of this court, the court by

orders dated 2/7/2021 and 6/7/2021 sought a further clarification as to

whether the order enhancing the retirement age from 56 to 58 years can be

given effect from the date of resolution by KLDC and it was directed to report

the views to the Court.

12. The Government considered it and by order dated 8/9/2021 relying

on the decision reported in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority

and Anr. v. B.D.Singhal and Ors (AIR 2021 SC 3457), held that, after

examining the entire facts, the Government had taken a policy decision not to

enhance the age from 56 to 58. Consequently, the order was effective from

19/2/2021, the date of the notification and not retrospectively, even from the

date of resolution of the Board of KLDC.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently assailed the W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 15

above, on the ground that, the order is discriminatory and the Government

ought to have given retrospective operation to the statute. It was further

contended that, in the case of five employees viz.petitioners Nos 13 and 21 in

W.P.(C) No.3428/2020, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.23823/2019 and

petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16442/2018, who retired during the pendency of the

writ proceedings, the benefit is liable to be extended to them. It was

contended that fixing a cut of date excluding certain persons who were party to

the lis cannot be justified and they are liable to be saved in the light of the

pendency of the proceedings.

14. I am not attracted by this contentions for two specific reasons.

Firstly, that it is a Government Decision, which is essentially based on a

policy. Notification dated 19/2/2021 clearly does not indicate explicitly or

impliedly that it will have retrospective operation. Necessarily, retirement age

from the face of the notification came into effect from the date of the order

only. Consequently, others who have already retired are not entitled to such

benefits, by virtue of the order.

15. Secondly, the notification was issued during the pendency of the writ

petitions. The ground of the alleged discrimination and relief on the basis of

such ground of discrimination is not set up, obviously since the writ petitions

were filed much earlier. Since grounds of attack of the Government notification

were not pleaded nor made out from the present pleadings and in the absence

of such prayer, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the notification or to

grant any relief to the petitioners from the face of the above order. However, it W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 16

is made clear that the writ petitioners will be entitled to challenge the

notification itself on any grounds available , if so advised, in an appropriate

proceedings, This is all the more so, since there may be several other

persons who have not approached the court, though retired in the

interregnum.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to an

interim order passed by this court dated 10/6/2020 in W.P.(C) 3428/2020.

When the fact was brought to the notice of the court that petitioners 13 and 21

are likely to retire before the age is enhanced, this court passed an interim

order as follows;

" It is needless to mention that the if the Government comes up with any policy decision raising the present age of retirement and the petitioners Nos. 13, and 21 falls within the present criteria, petitioners Nos.13 and 21 would be entitled to claim the benefits not withstanding their retirement."

Relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that,

this saved the case of the petitioners 13 and 21, who were specifically

protected by the above directions, notwithstanding their retirement during the

pendency of the proceedings.

17. The above contentions cannot be accepted for more reasons than

one. The interim order clearly shows that the protection will be applicable only

if the Government comes up with any policy decision raising the present age of

the retirement and also that if the petitioners 13, and 21 fall within the

proposed age criteria, they will be entitled to claim the benefit. Since

retrospective operation is not contemplated by the notification, evidently W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 17

petitioners 13 and 21 do not fall within the proposed age criteria as the orders

stand now .

18. It is also to be seen that , even assuming that the court intended that

if the age of retirement is enhanced and in the meanwhile petitioners 13 and

21 would retire, the benefit could extend to them also, such an intention is not

specifically clear from the wordings of the interim order. That is a relief which

was granted by the court in excess of the main prayer in the writ petitions.

Prayer in the writ petitions was only for a direction to the Government to

consider the request for disposal of Exts.P1 and P12 therein. Though another

prayer to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get enhancement of the

retirement age is made,, no such declaration is granted in this writ petition in

the light of the Government notification. Necessarily, an interim order is

expected to survive during the pendency of the writ petitions only and cannot

exceed main relief sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, a relief granting

protection to petitioners 13 and 21, on the basis of the interim order dated

10/6/2020 cannot be extended to the petitioners.

19. There is yet another reason for not granting such a relief in this writ

petition. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.23832/2019 and W.P.(C)

No.16442/2018 also retired pending the proceedings. It was submitted by the

learned counsel for the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.16442/2018 that, though

he had sought identical interim relief, as in the case of petitioners in W.P.(C)

No.3428/2020, such a relief was not granted by this court. In other words, if

the protection, as sought by the petitioners, is extended to the petitioners 13 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 18

and 21 in the light of the interim order, such a protection cannot be extended to

other petitioners, who were similarly situated. This court cannot also be

oblivious of the fact that there may be a possibility of few other employees

similarly situated and had retired during the pendency of these proceedings,

but have not approached this court. Virtually, this court does not propose to

segregate few persons who are granted such relief by an interim order and

grant a benefit.

20. Opposing the prayers, the learned Government Pleader invited my

attention to the decision reported in New Okhala Industrial Development

Authority'case (supra) to contended that, the Supreme Court in that case had

held that a Government Order enhancing the age of superannuation can be

given retrospective operation only if it is expressly stated or granted by

necessary implication. Employees cannot claim as right for enhancement in

age of retirement from the date of submission of proposal for approval of the

Government. It was held therein that the Government Order enhancing the

operation come into operation from the date mentioned in the notification. It

cannot run retrospectively unless it is so provided. In this case also, precisely

the petitioners are requesting for enhancement of age with effect from the date

of resolution by the Board. This has been specifically rejected by the

Government. In the absence of any specific challenge, if any, available to the

parties on legality and correctness of those Government Orders, I am inclined

to hold at present, that no such reliefs can be considered nor granted in the

writ petition, as is prayed now.

W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 19

In the light of the above, I am inclined to dismiss the writ petition holding

that no relief can be granted in this writ petition. However, this will not

preclude the petitioners from challenging the Government Order to the extent

it denies the right to persons who retired prior to that during the interregnum of

passing the resolution till the date of order and those of the petitioners who

retired pending the proceedings. Their right to challenge the legality of the

Government Order and the clarificatory order passed thereafter, in accordance

with law, if any such grounds is available, is left open. It is made clear, that no

comment is made in these writ petitions regarding the merits of the above

Government Order. The writ petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 20

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3428/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT.) NO.1483/2010 ID DATED18.10.2010

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) NO.15/2011 DATED 01.03.2011

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.33/2011 DATED 22.02.2011 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.01/2011 CSIN DATED 26.02.2011

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.65/2011 DATED 26.02.2011

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED ON 01.08.2019 UNDER THE RTI ACT

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO. 20/2013 FIN. DATED 07.01.2013

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2017 OF THE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2907 DATED 23.11.2017 OF THE KLDC

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.01.2018 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2018 OF THE EMPLOYEES

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 26.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE KLDC EMPLOYEES UNION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT

EXT.P14: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10/6/2020 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3428/2020 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 21

EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/2/2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

EXT.P16: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

KLDC/ADMN/RTD.CON.EMP/1332/2020 DATED 12/8/2020 OF THE KLDC

Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.64/2021 DATED 01.07.2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 22

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16442/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ITS CHAIRMAN ON 7-10-2017.

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 23-11-

2017 OF THE 275TH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF KLDC.

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO.KLDC/A4/ADMN/SSRAC/719/17 DATED 16-1- 2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.175/PU.3/2017/AGRI. DATED 9-3-2018.

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(RT) NO.1483/2010/ID DATED 18-10-2010.

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.33/2011/TD DATED 22-2-2011.

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.65/11/AD DATED 26-2-2011.

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.1/2011/CSIN DATED 26-2-2011.

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS)NO.15/2011/FOREST DATED 1-3-2011.

EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF KLDC BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ON 26-4-2018.

EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER DATED 16-5-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE REMAINDER DATED 16-5-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURAL W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 23

DEPARTMENT.

EXT.P13: COPY OF COMUNICATION NO.57/PU/2018/AGRI.DATED 29/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXT.P14: COPY OF GO(MS) NO.402/2017/FIN.DATED 25/8/2017

RESPNDENTS EXHIBITS:

EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 29/6/2018 W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 24

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23832/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.08.2019, RECEIVED FROM KAMCO

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.08.2019 RECEIVED FROM PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.08.2019, RECEIVED FROM STATE FARMING CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 09.08.2019 RECEIVED FROM OIL PALM INDIA LTD.

EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 25.08.2017

EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF EXTRACT OF RESOLUTION NO.2907 DATED 23.11.2017

EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.1.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE GOVERNMENT

EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 18.10.2010

EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.2.2011

EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.2.2011

EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26.2.2011

EXHIBIT P9 THE PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 1.03.2011

EXHIBIT P10 THE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.04.2018 SUBMITTED BY EMPLOYEES OF 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION W.P.(C)Nos.16442/2018,23832/2019 &3428/2020 25

EXHIBIT P11 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 6.10.2018

EXHIBIT P12 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.09.2019 RECEIVED FROM KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION.

EXHIBIT P13 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.08.2019 RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION

EXHIBIT P14 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.08.2019, RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA STATE HORTI CULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED

EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30/9/2019 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P16: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/9/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER OF THE SCOND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P17: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.30/2021/AGRICULTURE DATED 19/2/2021

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.170/12/FIN, DATED 22-03-2012.

EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF 28OTH MEETING DATED 28.09.2019.