Venu Narayana Iyer vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 8916 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 19807 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          VENU NARAYANA IYER, AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O. S. NARAYANA IYER, 5B ASHA HERITAGE,
          KOOTHUPURA LANE, STATUE JUNCTION,
          THRIPPUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682301

          BY ADV SHABU SREEDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

    2     KERALA STATE TEXTILE CORPORATION LIMITED
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          REGD. OFFICE : ANNAPOORNA, TC 9/2000-01,
          KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695010


          SMT.MABLE C KURIAN[SR.GP]
          SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN [SC]


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 19807/23
                                       2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he retired, on attaining the age of

superannuation, from the services of the 2 nd respondent - Kerala

State Textile Corporation Ltd.; but prays that the competent

Authority of the 1st respondent - State of Kerala, be directed to

issue orders enhancing the age of retirement in its services,

adverting to the orders issued in the case of similarly placed

entities and Corporations.

2. Sri.Anupam Raj - learned counsel for the petitioner,

vehemently argued that employees of various Corporations like the

Kerala State Coir Corporation, Kerala State Cashew Development

Corporation, Travancore Titanium Products, Travancore Sugars and

Chemicals Ltd, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation and such

other, have already been given the benefit of enhanced retirement

age by the Government; and therefore, that discrimination towards

persons like his client is illegal and unlawful.

3. In response, Sri.P.U.Shailajan - learned Standing

Counsel for the 2nd respondent, submitted that the Government has WPC 19807/23

already made it clear, through their applicable order, that

consideration of enhancement of retirement age will have to be

taken on a case to case basis and not in a uniform manner with

respect to all Corporations. He pointed out that, as per the said

order, Government has made it clear that several criteria will have

to be taken into account before the benefit of enhanced retirement

age is given to an entity/company; and therefore, that his client

has now decided not to make any proposal for such. He submitted

that, consequently, this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

4. Smt.Mable C. Kurian - learned Senior Government

Pleader, also affirmed the afore submissions of the learned

Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, arguing that there is no

vested right for the petitioner to seek enhancement of retirement

age in the Corporation. She added that, in any event, it is only if

the said respondent is to make a proposal before the Government,

can it be considered and that too taking note of all relevant and

germane criteria.

5. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is

evident that the petitioner has approached this Court under the WPC 19807/23

impression that the retirement age in the 2 nd respondent is

deserving of being enhanced, as has been done in the case of

certain other entities. However, as rightly argued by the learned

counsel for the respondents, the criteria for such purpose are

distinct and independent with each of the entities; and it is for the

Government to take a final decision thereon, on a case to case

basis. This is indubitable from the orders issued by them.

6. That said, any such exercise can be initiated by the

Government, only if the 2nd respondent is to make a proposal for

such purpose. However, since Sri.P.U.Shailajan, their learned

Standing Counsel, says no such has been made because of the

pathetic financial situation now faced by them, I cannot find any

vested right for the petitioner to seek the prayers made in this

Writ Petition.

In the afore circumstances, I close this Writ Petition without

acceding to any of the prayers sought for; but leaving liberty to

the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent with an apposite

representation, if he is so interested; and if it is done within a

period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this WPC 19807/23

judgment, same shall be considered by them, leading to a decision

whether a proposal is required to be made by them before the

Government for enhancement of retirement age of their employees.

Sd/-

RR                                     DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                             JUDGE
 WPC 19807/23


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19807/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1          THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
                    THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.5.2023
Exhibit-P2          THE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 265/2022/HEDN,
                    DATED 31-05-2022
Exhibit-P3          TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF BOARD
                    MEETING OF THE KERALA STATE TEXTILE
                    CORPORATION HELD ON 26-8-2014
Exhibit-P4          THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.
                    5142/2023 DATED 30.5.2023