Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Raveendran Ak on 7 February, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 1445 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2024 IN WP(C) NO.2357 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695001
ADV. VINITHA.B,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WP(C):
1 DR JYOTHISH KUMAR V
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF P VIJAYAKUMAR, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA
LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA RESIDING AT 8A, SIVAJI
PEARL APARTMENT, E STREET, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR,
2
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
SASTHAMANGALAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN -
695010
2 KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
3 THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
REKHA VASUDEVAN -R1
SOYA D.C(K/200/2003)-R1
MAHESH C.R.(K/204/2006)-R1
ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH(K/1385/2020)-R1
Millu Dandapani - R2 and R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2025, ALONG WITH
WA.1792/2024, 1478/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 7.2.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 1478 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C) NO.11951 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
ADV.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WP(C):
1 JESSY JOSEPH
AGED 57 YEARS
WIFE OF GEORGE K JOHN, MANAGER (FODDER DEVELOPMENT)
SEED UNIT, K.L.D BOARD, DHONI FARM, DHONI P.O.,
PALAKKAD, KERALA 678 009, RESIDING AT KAVALAKKATT
HOUSE, KRISHNA GARDEN, KALLEKULANGARA P.O., PALAKKAD,
4
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
KERALA., PIN - 678009
2 DIVAKARAN PILLAI K
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF KRISHNANKUTTY (LATE), ASSISTANT MANAGER (A/A),
K.L.D BOARD, DHONI FARM, DHONI P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA
678 009. RESIDING AT MITHUN NIVAS, EZHAVA SOUTH,
CHETTIKULANGARA.P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
PIN - 690106
3 KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA., PIN - 695004
4 THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
REKHA VASUDEVAN
SOYA D.C(K/200/2003)
MAHESH C.R.(K/204/2006)
ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH(K/1385/2020)
BY ADV Millu Dandapani - R3 AND R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2025, ALONG WITH
WA.1445/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 7.2.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 1790 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024 IN WP(C) NO.10816 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695001
ADV.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN WP(C):
1 RAVEENDRAN AK
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. KUNJAYYAPPAN, AREEKARA HOUSE KRISHNAKRIPA,
PERVUVALLIPADAM, IRINJALAKUDA P.O,THRISSUR, KERALA,
PIN - 680121
6
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
2 SHAGEER MS
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. SHANMUKAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O,
MUNIPPARA, PARIYARAM, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680721
3 NARAYANANKUTTY P
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY GUPTAN, PALAKALAM, PADINJAREKKARA,
KARIMBA, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678597
4 PEETHAMBARAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. UNNIRY, KIZHAKKETHAYYIL, ALOOR, MUKUNDAPURAM
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680683
5 SUDHANANDHAN KALPALLI
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN KALPALLI, KALPALLI HOUSE, KULAKKATTIRI,
THIRUVALI P.O, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676123
6 SUBASH CK
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. KUTTAPAN, CHITRAMPILLY, EDAKKULAM P.O,
POOMANGALAM, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680688
7 ANILKUMAR KA
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, KOLAYATTIL HOUSE, PULLUR P.O,
AMBALANADA, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680683
8 KERALA FEEDS LTD.
KALLETTUMKARA P.O, THRISSUR, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 680683
9 CHAIRMAN
KERALA FEEDS LTD., KALLETTUMKARA P.O, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680683
BY ADVS.
KARTHIKA MARIA
D.PREM KAMATH
ARUN THOMAS(K/844/2007)
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL(K/000278/2018)
JOE S. ADHIKARAM(K/000838/2020)
KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW(K/1812/2020)
MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS(K/000936/2019)
VEENA RAVEENDRAN(K/838/2016)
7
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
LEAH RACHEL NINAN(K/002325/2019)
SHYNI WILLIAM(K/002115/2023)
ANJALY ELIAS(K/754/2020)
NAVYA SEBY(K/000990/2024)
SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM(K/977/2018)
TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL)(K/000821/2008)
BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)(K/342/1988)
SRI.BENNY GERVACIS, ADDL.CGSC(CG-72)
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2025, ALONG WITH
WA.1445/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 7.2.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
8
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 1792 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2024 IN WP(C) NO.2357 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/3RD PARTIES:
1 J.KARTHIKEYAN
AGED 56 YEARS
CO-ORDINATOR, KLD BOARD, SEED UNIT, DHONI FARM,
PALAKKAD-678009, RESIDENT OF: THUSHARAM NARUVANMOODU
(PO), THIRUVANAHTAPURAM, PIN - 695528
2 K.G.JUDY
AGED 57 YEARS
MANAGER (FD), KLD BOARD, MODERN BULL MOTHER FARM,
KOLAHALAMEDU, IDUKKI-685501. RESIDENT OF: KOTTIYATH
HOUSE, MOSQUE ROAD, MARADU, ERANKULAM, PIN - 682304
3 BHADRA.K
AGED 50 YEARS
DEPUTY MANAGER (FD), KLD BOARD, KAINOOR P.O, PUTHUR,
THRISSUR - 680014. RESIDENT OF: KANNIMEL HOUSE,
PUNNAMOOD, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
BY ADVS.
K.RAJEEV
V.VISAL AJAYAN
9
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WP(C):
1 DR. JYOTHISH KUMAR. V
AGED 58 YEARS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, GOKULAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT
8A, SIVAJI PEARL APARTMENT, E STREET, JAWAHAR NAGAR,
KOWDIAR, SASTHAMANGALAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695010
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
3 THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DIARY
DEVELOPMENT) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
5 THE KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
6 THE CHAIRMAN
THE KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, GOKULAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
REKHA VASUDEVAN
Millu Dandapani
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2025, ALONG WITH
WA.1445/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 7.2.2025 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
10
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 18TH MAGHA, 1946
WA NO. 1841 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2024 IN WP(C) NO.31507 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FINANCE (PRC-C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
PIN - 695001
ADV.VINITHA.B,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IN WP(C):
1 M PRABHUDHAS
AGED 57 YEARS
DEPUTY MANAGER (PURCHASE), KLD BOARD LTD, HEAD OFFICE,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, -695 004, KERALA, RESIDING
AT 684-G, GERIZIM, NH220, PAMBANAR PO, PEERMADE,
IDUKKI, KERALA, PIN - 685531
11
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
2 KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
3 THE CHAIRMAN
KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, GOKULAM, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
BY ADVS.
REKHA VASUDEVAN
SOYA D.C(K/200/2003)
MAHESH C.R.(K/204/2006)
ELIZABETH V.JOSEPH(K/1385/2020)
Millu Dandapani -R2 AND R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2025, ALONG WITH
WA.1445/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 7.2.2025 PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
12
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
"CR"
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The issue in all these writ appeals pertains to the expected
policy decision of the Government to enhance the retirement age
of the employees of various Public Sector Undertakings ('PSU's in
short) in Kerala, and the legality of the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge by way of final judgments as well as by way
of interim orders, allowing the petitioners in the writ petitions to
continue in the posts where they are presently working, till such a
decision is being taken by the Government on the basis of a report
to be submitted by the expert committee appointed to study the
feasibility of such enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to
60.
2. The appellants in W.A Nos.1445, 1478 and 1841 of 2024
are the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.2357, 11951 and 31507 of 2024
respectively. They are employees of the Kerala Livestock
Development Board ('KLD Board', in short). The appellants in W.A
No.1790 of 2024 are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.10816 of 2024.
They are employees of Kerala Feeds Ltd. The appellants in W.A.
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
No.1792 of 2024 are third parties to W.P.(C)No.2357 of 2024, who
are also employees of the KLD Board. As per the final judgments
dated 28.02.2024 and 11.04.2014 passed in respective Writ
petitions Nos.2357 and 11951 of 2024, the learned Single Judge
directed the 1st respondent State of Kerala to direct the expert
committee constituted to study the feasibility of enhancement of
the retirement age of the employees of PSUs in Kerala from 58 to
60 years and submit a report within four months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioners-employees were
allowed to continue in the post where they are working, with a
rider that they would be entitled to draw only the same wage at
their risk and their continuation in the post would be in accordance
with the recommendation of the expert committee and the orders
passed by the 1st respondent State. In W.P.(C) No.31507 of 2024
and W.P.(C)No.10816 of 2024, the learned Single Judge passed
interim orders permitting the petitioners therein to continue in
service till such final decision is being taken by the 1st respondent
State of Kerala. Being aggrieved by the permission granted to
continue in the post by the employees till the final decision is taken
by the Government, the 1st respondent State of Kerala preferred
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790 and 1841 of 2024. The employees who
are about to be promoted on the retirement of the petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.2357 of 2024 filed W.A. No.1792 of 2024.
3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing
for the State, the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.
No.1792 of 2024, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in
W.A. No.1445 of 2024, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondents 1 to 7 in W.A. No.1790 of 2024, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent 2 and 3 in W.A. No.1445 of 2024
and for respondents 8 and 9 in W.A. No.1792 of 2024 and the
learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 in W.A.
No.1790 of 2024.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the
age of superannuation is a matter of policy decision of the
Government and till a decision is taken in that regard, an
employee cannot claim it as a matter of right. As per Ext.P5 order
dated 04.11.2022, based on the decision of the cabinet, the
Government stopped the implementation of the recommendation
of the report filed by the previous expert committee regarding the
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
retirement age of employees in PSUs in Kerala and it was decided
to conduct a study on a case-to-case basis of each PSUs. As per
Ext.P6 order dated 19.04.2023, the Government reconstituted the
expert committee for conducting a comprehensive study on
bringing KSEBL, KSRTC and KWA under the common framework
for pay/wage structure in tune with the report of the erstwhile
expert committee. The enhancement of retirement age in State
PSUs on a case-to-case basis as mentioned in Ext.P5 Government
order dated 04.11.2022 was also included in the terms of
reference of the new expert committee constituted as per Ext.P6.
By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sureshchandra
Singh v. Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. [(2004) 1 SCC 592]
and Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v.
Bikartan Das [2023 (5) KHC SN 28] the learned Senior
Government Pleader argued that the decision regarding age of
superannuation is a policy matter and it is not violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India, since service conditions in each
PSU are different. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
submitted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the matter
of policy decision of the Government and placed reliance on the
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
judgments of the Apex Court in New Okhla Industrial
Development Authority v. B.D Singhal [(2021) 17 SCC 435]
and Prakasan M.P.(Dr.) v. State of Kerala [2023 (2)
KLT 181]. By relying on the judgment of this Court in Union
Territory of Lakshadweep v. Salmikoya.K.[2025 (1) KLT
65], the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that an
appeal under Section 5(i) of the High Court Act, 1958, is not
maintainable against the impugned interlocutory order since it is
not the one affecting substantial rights of the parties.
5. Sri. K. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in W.A. No.1792 of 2024 submitted that at present the
retirement age of the employees of KLD Board is 58 years. It is
the Rule that prevails at the time of superannuation will be
applicable to the employees and they cannot claim the benefit of
a future Rule that is expected to be implemented, by filing a writ
petition. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge
adversely affects the appellants who are expecting a promotion to
the next higher post on the retirement of the writ petitioners. What
is the locus standi of the writ petitioners to raise such a claim by
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
filing the writ petitions is not pleaded in the petition. Only because
the Government has decided to constitute an expert committee to
study the enhancement of the retirement age of the employees of
PSUs, the petitioners will not get any right to claim that they are
entitled to the benefit that would be expected to be given to the
employees, if the recommendation is in their favour. The learned
counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in
P.Venugopal v. Union of India [(2008) 5 SCC 1], Goa State
Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Krishna Nath A. (dead) through
legal representatives [(2019) 20 SCC 38] and the judgments
of this Court in Prakasan v. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT
281] and that of a Division Bench of this Court dated 24.01.2025
in OP(KAT)No.345 of 2022.
6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent in W.A.
No.1445 of 2024 argued that in the impugned order, there is no
direction to take a decision by the 1st respondent State in a
particular manner. The prayer of the 1st respondent herein in the
writ petition was only to direct the Government to take a decision
on the basis of the recommendations of the already constituted
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
expert committee. Previously the retirement age of the employees
in the KLD Board was enhanced from 56 to 58 by the
Government. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the
Apex Court in Sadasivan Nair G. (Dr.) v. Cochin University of
Science and Technology [2021 (6) KHC 727] and in State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Shyam Kumar Yadav [2024 KHC Online
8280] in support of his arguments.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1
to 7 in W.A. No.1790 of 2024 argued that Ext.P6 decision taken
by the Government to constitute a new expert committee was not
a conscious decision. In the case of employees of 'NORKA', the
Government has accepted the recommendation of the committee
and enhanced the retirement age from 58 to 60. Therefore, the
Government is taking a 'pick and choose' policy in the matter of
enhancement of the retirement age, which is impermissible.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2
and 3 in W.A. No.1445 of 2024 and respondents 8 and 9 in W.A.
No.1792 of 2024 argued that the KLD Board is supporting the
enhancement of the retirement age since it is facing acute staff
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
shortage and had already recommended the Government to
enhance the retirement age of the employees from 58 to 60. The
learned Senior Counsel repeated the very same argument of the
other supporting respondents that, in the impugned order the
learned Single Judge directed the Government to get the report of
the Expert Committee in a time-bound manner and to take a
decision on the basis of the recommendations of that Committee.
Moreover, there is no financial burden to the Government as the
salary of the employees will be met by the Board. By relying on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Director, Lift Irrigation
Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty [(1991) 2 SCC
295] the learned Senior Counsel argued that an employee has no
fundamental right for promotion and the chance of promotion
cannot be claimed as a right. The learned Senior counsel further
relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Dwarka Prasad v.
Union of India [(2003) 6 SCC 535], Ramjas Foundation v.
Union of India [(2010) 14 SCC 38], Ravikumar Dhansukhlal
Maheta v. High of Gujarat [2024 SCC Online SC 972], Bihar
State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das [2024 SCC Online
SC 1768] and the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
Pankaj Sharma v. State of H.P. [2023 KHC Online 4561] in
support of her arguments.
9. The learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9 in W.A.
No.1790 of 2024 also addressed the arguments supporting the
stand of the State.
10. For convenience of reference, with respect to the claim
of the employees of the KLD Board, we refer the parties and
materials on record as described in W.A. No.1445 of 2024 and as
far as the employees of Kerala Feeds Ltd. are concerned, we refer
them as in W.A No.1790 of 2024.
11. The present age of superannuation of the employees of
the KLD Board as well as the employees of Kerala Feeds Ltd. is 58
years. As per Ext.P1 Board decision dated 19.12.2013 it was
resolved to enhance the retirement age of directly recruited
employees of KLD Board to 60 years. In consonance with the
Board decision, as per Ext.P2, a proposal dated 18.04.2017 was
submitted by the 4th respondent KLD Board to the Government to
enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60. A
committee has been constituted by the Government to study the
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
proposal and it was intimated to the 4th respondent by virtue of
Ext.P3 letter dated 12.08.2017. As per Ext.P4 Government Order
dated 29.10.2022, the Government took a decision to implement
the recommendations of the committee to enhance the retirement
age of the employees of PSUs to 60 years. However, the
implementation of the clause pertaining to the enhancement of
age of retirement of employees of PSUs was kept in abeyance in
pursuance to the decision of the cabinet meeting and Ext.P5
consequent order dated 04.11.2022 was passed by the
Government. Again by virtue of Ext.P6 Government Order dated
19.04.2023 another expert committee was constituted to examine
the scope of bringing KSEBL, KSRTC, and KWA in the common
framework for pay/wage structure in tune with the
recommendation of the erstwhile expert committee. The report of
this expert committee is sought to be finalized in a time-bound
manner in the writ petitions filed by the employees of the KLD
Board and the employees of Kerala Feeds Ltd. The Director Board
of Kerala Feeds Ltd. had also recommended the Government to
enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60
years.
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
12. In Sureshchandra Singh [(2004) 1 SCC 592] the
Apex Court was considering a claim made by the employees of
Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. for enhancement of retirement
age from 58 years to 60 years, in par with the retirement age of
Central Government employees implemented by the Government
as per the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay
Commission. The Court after considering the rival contentions
held thus:
"The Appellants assail the decision of the Board on the
ground of violation of principles of equality. It is alleged that
the Board level employees were allowed to continue in
service till the age of sixty and the employees like appellants
who were below the Board level were forced to retire at the
age of fifty-eight. In reply respondents submitted that board
level employees could not be equated and compared with
the other employees. Whole time directors, who are two in
numbers, are directly appointed by the President of India
for a fixed term of five years that could be reviewed even
earlier; and that other members of the board are
government servants and are nominees or representatives
from various ministries and are appointed by the President
of India for a term of three years. In these circumstances
we find that board of directors themselves form a different
class and cannot be compared with other employees in
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
regard to conditions of service applicable to them. Allegation
of discrimination is also raised by the Appellants vis - a - vis
employees of other corporations. Each Public Sector
Undertaking is an independent body/entity and is free to
have its own service conditions as per law. However, all
employees in the FCIL who are working in its various Units
and Divisions retire at the age of fifty-eight as per the
relevant rules; and that even the future employees will
retire at the age of fifty-eight. We also find that since the
employees of different corporations could not be treated
alike since every corporation will have to take into account
its separate circumstances so as to formulate its policy and
consequently the argument that there is discrimination of
Appellants vis - a - vis employees of other corporation also
cannot be accepted."
(Underline Supplied)
13. In B.D Singhal [(2021) 17 SCC 435] the Apex Court
while considering the issue as to whether the High Court has
transcended the limits of its power of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by ordering retrospective effect
to the order of Government of Uttar Pradesh enhancing the age
of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 60 years held
thus:
" Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
"public function" channelised by the provisions of the statute
and the Service Regulations, the doctrine of promissory
estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of Noida
Authority. Though Noida Authority sought the approval of the
State Government for the enhancement with "immediate
effect", it never intended or portrayed to have intended to
give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable
government order. The representation of Noida Authority
could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation since it
was a mere recommendation which was subject to the
approval of the State Government. Hence, the doctrine of
legitimate expectation also finds no application to the facts
of the present case."
14. In Prakasan M.P [2023 (2) KLT 181] the Apex Court
while considering the appeal filed by the members of the teaching
faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the State of
Kerala, seeking enhancement of age of retirement from 55 years
to 60 years held thus:
"Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the
Executive. It is for the State to take a call as to whether the
circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend
the age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees
or not. It must be assumed that the State would have
weighed all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision
to grant extension of age. As for the aspect of retrospectivity
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
of such a decision, let us not forget, whatever may be the
cut - off date fixed by the State Government, some
employees would always be left out in the cold. But that
alone would not make the decision bad; nor would it be a
ground for the Court to tread into matters of policy that are
best left for the State Government to decide. The appellants
herein cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age
of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by
virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a
later date, they would be entitled to all the benefits including
the monetary benefits flowing from G.O. dated 9th April,
2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation".
(Underline Supplied)
15. In Bikartan Das [2023 (5) KHC SN 28] the Apex
Court while considering the benefit of enhancement of retirement
age from 60 to 65 years claimed by respondent No.1 therein who
was appointed as a Research Assistant in Central Research
Institute in par with the retirement age of Ayush Doctors, by
relying on the judgment in State of Bihar v. Teachers
Association of Government Engineering College [(2000) 10
SCC 527] held that the fixation of different retirement age to the
employees of autonomous bodies and that of the Government
employees will not be a discrimination coming under Article 14 of
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
the Constitution of India. The Court held that employees of
autonomous bodies are governed by their own rules and bye laws
and they cannot claim parity with the Government employees.
16. While coming to the decisions relied by Adv.K Rajeev, in
Venugopal [(2008) 5 SCC 1] while considering the question of
termination of tenure of the Directors in All India Institute of
Medical Sciences before expiry of the normal tenure, the Apex
Court held thus:
"A further decision relied upon in this connection by Mr
Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent, is the decision of this Court in Union of India v.
Dr. S. Baliar Singh [(1998) 2 SCC 208 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 522]
particularly learned Senior Counsel has relied on para 12 of
the said decision in support of his contention. Relying on this
decision of this Court, it was contended that the rules which
were in force on the date of retirement would govern the
employee concerned. On this aspect of the matter, there
cannot be any dispute as such aspect is well settled by a
series of decisions of this Court as referred to hereinabove.
But the problem arises when the constitutional validity of the
statutory provisions is called in question on the ground of
violation of fundamental rights. A person entering into a
government service is no doubt liable to be dealt with by the
relevant Act or the Rules but it ceases to be so in the event
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
of his success in challenging the constitutional validity of the
same".
17. In Krishna Nath [(2019) 20 SCC 38] the Apex Court
held thus:
"It is a settled law that when there is stay of proceedings by
court, no person can be made to suffer for no fault on his
part and a person who has liability but for the interim stay,
cannot be permitted to reap the advantages on the basis of
interim orders of the court. In Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan
[(2010) 1 SCC 417 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 1108] , it was held
that no person can suffer from the act of court and unfair
advantage gained by a party of interim order must be
neutralised. The court should never permit a litigant to
perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the
bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any
attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively
curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful,
unauthorised or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of
process of the court. No one should be allowed to use the
judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust
profits. The object and true meaning of the concept of
restitution cannot be achieved unless the courts adopt a
pragmatic approach in dealing with the cases".
18. In Prakasan [2010 (4) KLT 281] the appellants who
are the members of teaching faculty in Homeo Medical Colleges in
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
the State approached this court seeking enhancement of their
retirement age from 55 years to 60 years, contending that the
retirement age of teachers in the Medical Colleges teaching
Modern Medicine (Allopathy) under the Director of Medical
Education is increased from 55 to 60. After considering the rival
contentions, this Court held that since the extension of the age
limit for teaching staff of the Medical College is a policy decision,
it is not open to the High Court to issue any positive direction for
increasing the retirement of teaching staff of the Homeo Medical
Colleges also.
19. In the judgment dated 24.01.2025 passed in
OP(KAT)No. 345 of 2022, a Division Bench of this Court, after
considering a claim made by the petitioners therein who are
working in the paramedical category under the Directorate of
Health Services, to enhance their retirement age in par with
Doctors engaged in medical education held that the paramedical
staff cannot as a matter of right demand that they should be
treated at par with Doctors under whom they are working. The
age of retirement of a Government servant is determined by the
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
Government. The court cannot entertain any claim for
enhancement of retirement age. It is purely a policy decision of
the Government.
20. In Sadasivan Nair [2021 (6) KHC 727] the Apex
Court after considering a claim made by the appellant therein
who was working as a Lecturer in the respondent University for
reckoning his experience at the Bar as qualifying service for
determination of superannuation pension held thus:
"While we accept the settled position of law that the rule
applicable in matters of determination of pension is that
which exists at the time of retirement, we are unable to find
any legal basis in the action of the respondent University of
selectively allowing the benefit of R.25(a). The law, as
recognized by this Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad and Syed
Yousuddin Ahmed (supra) unequivocally states that the
pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be
determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement.
However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the
rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly
situated".
(Underline Supplied)
21. In Shyam Kumar Yadav [2024 KHC Online 8280]
this Court on considering the issue whether the appellant therein
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
is entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee, in view of the
Government policy/circular and the long period of service
rendered by him as daily wages held thus:
"It is true that an employee engaged on daily wages has no
legally vested right to seek regularisation of his services.
However, if the competent authority takes a policy decision
within the permissible framework, its benefit must be
extended to all those who fall within the parameters of such
a policy. Authorities cannot be permitted to pick and choose
in such circumstances".
(Underline Supplied)
22. In Pravat Kiran Mohanty [(1991) 2 SCC 295] the
Apex Court held thus:
"There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an
employee has only right to be considered for promotion,
when it arises, in accordance with the relevant rules. From
this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court
that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in
violation of the right of the respondent/writ petitioner to
equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of
the Constitution, and the respondent/writ petitioner was
unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified".
(Underline Supplied)
23. In Dwarka Prasad [(2003) 6 SCC 535] the Apex
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
Court held thus:
"Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be
pressed into service to describe the fixation of lower quota
for POs as discriminatory. It is well established in law that
the right to be considered for promotion on fair and equal
basis without discrimination may be claimed as a legal and
a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution but chances of promotion as such cannot be
claimed as of right. See: Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar v.
State of Maharashtra [(1974) 1 SCC 317 : AIR 1974 SC 259]
, AIR para 12, at p. 267)".
24. In Ramjas Foundation [(2010) 14 SCC 38] the
Apex Court held thus:
"The principle that a person who does not come to the court
with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of
his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to
any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under
Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the
cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The
object underlying the principle is that every court is not only
entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous
litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try
to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or
by making misstatements or by suppressing facts which have
a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case".
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
25. In Ravikumar [2024 SCC Online SC 972] the Apex
Court held thus:
"However, in India, no government servant can claim
promotion as their right because the Constitution does not
prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts. The
Legislature or the executive may decide the method for filling
vacancies to promotional posts based on the nature of
employment and the functions that the candidate will be
expected to discharge. The courts cannot sit in review to
decide whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to
select the 'best candidates', unless on the limited ground
where it violates the principle of equal opportunity under
Article 16 of the Constitution".
26. In Dharamdeo Das [2024 SCC Online SC 1768] the
Apex Court held thus:
"It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from
the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy
occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created.
No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been
treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a
fundamental right, at the same time, there is no
fundamental right to promotion itself".
(Underline Supplied)
27. In Pankaj Sharma [2023 KHC Online 4561] the High
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
Court of Himachal Pradesh held thus:
"It is well settled law that a Court of Law is a Court of equity
and in granting relief under Art.226, the Courts will bear in
mind the conduct of the party, who invokes the jurisdiction.
This principle emanates from the very nature of the power
of interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India
i.e. a discretionary jurisdiction. Non disclosure of full facts
or suppression of relevant materials or otherwise
misleading the Court would disentitle a party to any relief.
A person, who approaches the Court for justice, must come
with clean hands and not one, who deliberately attempts to
deflect the Court from the true path of justice by leading
the Court to injustice".
28. A scrupulous analysis of the decisions referred above
would make it clear that the enhancement of the retirement age
is a policy decision of the Government. By invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, as a matter of right an employee cannot seek a direction
against the Government to take that policy decision in a particular
manner. Similarly, the law which was in force on the date of
retirement was applicable to the employees. Further, an employee
in service cannot claim promotion as a matter of right.
29. In the writ appeals under our consideration, admittedly
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
the Government has not taken any decision regarding
enhancement of the retirement age of employees as suggested by
the respective Boards, so far. Only an expert committee was
constituted by virtue of Ext.P6 notification to study the feasibility
of the recommendations on a case-to-case basis. Till a
recommendation is made by the expert committee to enhance the
retirement age and a decision is being taken by the Government,
the employees working in the PSUs cannot claim the benefit of
proposals made by their respective Boards to the Government to
enhance their retirement age. The study of the expert committee
would differ from case to case, by taking into consideration the
working conditions and other aspects existing in the PSUs, which
will differ from one PSU to another. Therefore, the
recommendation of the committee also will differ from case to
case. A uniform approach with respect to the retirement age of
the employees of different PSUs cannot be adopted by the expert
committee as well as the Government. In such circumstances, the
petitioners in the respective writ petitions are bound by the rules
that are applicable to them as on the date of their respective dates
of superannuation. An Employee cannot expect that the
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
Government will take the decision in a particular manner, on the
proposal made by the PSU concerned. It completely depends on
the study report of the expert committee constituted and also
several other socio economic aspects under consideration of the
Government. An employee cannot claim the benefit of a decision
that is not yet taken by the Government. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that the direction of the learned Single Judge
in the impugned judgments and interim orders permitting the
petitioners therein to continue in service till the expert committee
submits the report and a decision is being taken by the
Government is not legal.
30. In Salmikoya.K [2025 (1) KLT 65], this Court
considered the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5(i) of
the Kerala High Court, 1958 and held that an appeal under that
provision is maintainable against an interlocutory order if it affects
the substantial right and liability of the parties. It is true that
the appellants in W.A.No.1792 of 2024 who are at present
employed in KLD Board are expecting promotion on the retirement
of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.2357 of 2024. But viewed in the
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Pravat Kiran
Mohanty [(1991) 2 SCC 295], Dwarka Prasad [(2003) 6 SCC 535],
Ravikumar [2024 SCC Online SC 972] and Dharamdeo Das [2024
SCC Online SC 1768] it is clear that they cannot claim promotion
as a matter of right. But, they can definitely challenge a decision,
which will adversely affect their prospects in employment, if that
decision was rendered on wrong appreciation of settled principles
of law. The portion of the impugned judgments in W.P.(C)Nos.
2357 of 2024 and 11951 of 2024 and interim orders in W.P.(C)Nos.
10816 of 2024 and 31507 of 2024, to the extent it permits the
petitioners in the respective writ petitions to continue in service
irrespective of their retirement age is one that substantially affects
the rights of all the appellants herein. Therefore, we are inclined
to allow these writ appeals in part.
31. In the result, these writ appeals are allowed in part by
setting aside the impugned judgments dated 28.02.2024 and
11.04.2024 respectively, in W.P.(C)Nos. 2357 of 2024 and 11951
of 2024 and interim orders dated 27.03.2024 and 26.09.2024,
respectively, in W.P.(C)Nos. 10816 of 2024 and 31507 of 2024
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent permitting the
petitioners therein to continue in service till a decision is being
taken by the Government regarding enhancement of the
retirement age from 58 to 60 years. We do not interfere with the
direction of the learned Single Judge directing the State of Kerala
to direct the expert committee to take a decision regarding the
enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60 years in the
PSUs mentioned therein in a time-bound manner.
The writ appeals are disposed of as above.
SD/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
SD/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
Sks
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
Vide order dated 13.02.2025 in W.A Nos.1445, 1478, 1790, 1792
and 1841 of 2024, following corrections are made in the judgment
dated 07.02.2025 in W.A Nos.1445, 1478, 1790, 1792 and 1841
of 2024.
1. The words 'the petitioners' in the 2nd and 5th lines of
paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 07.02.2025 are corrected
as 'respondents 1 to 3'.
2. The word 'they' in the 3rd and 6th line of paragraph 2 of the
judgment dated 07.02.2025 is corrected as 'the petitioners
in those write petitions' and 'the petitioners in that writ
petition' respectively.
3. The word 'not' occurring in the 3rd last line and last line of
paragraph 4 of the judgment dated 07.02.2025 is deleted.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE APPELLANT
TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KLD BOARD. DATED
23.05.2024
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
APPELLANT HEREIN TO THE KLD BOARD LTD.DATED
29.05.2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R5(D) The true copy of the letter GO (P) No.
135/2022/Fin dated 04/11/2022 issued by the 2nd
respondent
ANNEXURE R5(B) The copy of the letter No. PMB/3862/2006/1254
dated 18.04.2017 addressed by this respondent
ANNEXURE R5(C) The true copy of the letter No. F1/129/2017-AH,
dated 12/08/2017, issued by the 2nd respondent
to the 5th respondent
ANNEXURE R5(E) The true copy of the letter dated 16/02/2023
addressed to the Managing Director, KLD Board by
the KLD Board Officers Confederation
ANNEXURE R5(F) The true copy of the GO (MS No. 88/2023/ID dated
21/12/2023 had enhanced the retirement age of
Kerala Coir Workers Welfare Fund Board from 58
to 60 years
ANNEXURE R5(G) The true copy of the letter No PMB/3862/2006
dated 22/12/2023 issued by the 5th respondent to
the Hon'ble Minister for Animal Husbandry and
Dairying
ANNEXURE R5(A) The true copy of the GO (MS) No. 208/14/AD dated
24.09.2014
Annexure R1(a) A true copy of the judgment dated 01.04.2013 in
W P (C) No. 7858 of 2011 of this Honourable
Court
Annexure R1(b) A true copy of the judgment dated 15.07.2014 in
W P (C) No. 5626 of 2014 and connected cases of
this Honourable Court
W.A.Nos.1445, 1478, 1790,1792 & 1841 of 2024 2025:KER:9966
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(b) A true copy of the judgment dated 15.07.2014 in
W P (C) No. 5626 of 2014 and connected cases of
this Honourable Court
Annexure R1(c) A true copy of the Cabinet Decisions of
11.12.2024 of the Government of Kerala as
downloaded from the Official Website of Kerala
Chief Minister
Annexure R1(a) A true copy of the judgment dated 01.04.2013 in
W P (C) No. 7858 of 2011 of this Honourable
Court
