PSU Employees Can’t Claim Benefit Of Proposals Made By Boards To Govt To Enhance Their Retirement Age Till A Final Decision: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court was dealing with Writ Appeals in which the issue was related to the expected policy decision of the Government to enhance the retirement age of the PSU employees.
Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S., Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that the employees working in the PSUs (Public Sector Undertakings) cannot claim the benefit of proposals made by their respective Boards to the Government to enhance their retirement age till a final decision is made.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Appeals in which the issue was related to the expected policy decision of the Government to enhance the retirement age of the PSU employees.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed, “In the writ appeals under our consideration, admittedly 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 Bench said that 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 and therefore, the recommendation of the committee also will differ from case to case.
Government Pleader Vinitha B. appeared for the Appellants while Advocate Rekha Vasudevan appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
The issue in this case pertained to the expected policy decision of the Government to enhance the retirement age of the employees of various PSUs in the Kerala State, and the legality of the direction issued by the 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 were 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. The Appellants were the employees of the Kerala Livestock Development Board (KLD Board) and Kerala Feeds Ltd.
As per the final Judgments passed in respective Writ Petitions, the Single Judge directed the State 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 were 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 State. Further, the Single Judge via Interim Orders permitted the employees to continue in service till a final decision is taken by the State. Being aggrieved by such permission granted to continue in the post by the employees till the final decision, the State preferred Appeals.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, elucidated, “… 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."
The Court explained that 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 and in such circumstances, the employees 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 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”, it added.
The Court, therefore, was of the view that the direction of the Single Judge in the impugned Judgments and Interim Orders permitting the Petitioners (employees) therein to continue in service till the Expert Committee submits the report and a decision is being taken by the Government is not legal.
“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. … it is clear that they cannot claim promotion as a matter of right”, it held.
However, the Court clarified that the employees 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.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgments and Interim Orders to the extent permitting the employees to continue in service till a decision is being taken by the Government regarding enhancement of the retirement age from 58 to 60 years.
Cause Title- State of Kerala & Ors. v. Dr. Jyothish Kumar V & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:9966)
Appearance:
Appellants: Government Pleader Vinitha B.
Respondents: Advocates Rekha Vasudevan, Soya D.C., Mahesh C.R., Elizabeth V. Joseph, and Millu Dandapani.
