Disposed

T.P.Abdul Hakkim and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC14 Nov 2012WP(C)/6553/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Government and Council decision enhancing retirement age to 60 years, specifically opposing a cut-off date excluding those who retired earlier. The single-judge court declined to decide facts regarding retirement benefits as relief was limited, directing a detailed representation to be filed within two weeks for future consideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file a detailed representation within two weeks for consideration within two months; matters disposed.

T.P.Abdul Hakkim and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/23RD KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6553 of 2011 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. T.P.ABDUL HAKKIM, TECHINICAL ASSISTANT, GRADE V, CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE.

¶8

2. V.SUNDARA RAJAN, TECHNICAL OFFICER GRADE IV, CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE.

¶9

3. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE IV,

¶10

CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE.

¶11

4. E.G.SOMAN, TECHNICAL OFFICER, GRADE IV,CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

2. THE CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES

¶16

DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT,KUNNAMANGALAM,

¶17

KOZHKODE, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - 671 121.

¶18

3. KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,

¶19

TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT REP.BY HIS

¶20

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM,

¶21

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 021.

¶22

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH R3 BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH,SC,KSCSTE SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, K.S.C.T.E

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2012 ALONG WITH WPC. 15797/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Kss

¶25

WPC.NO.6553/2011 T

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED INVITING APPLICATION FOR VARIOUS POSTS INCLUDING THE POSTS HELD BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 20/11/1982.

¶29

P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.30/87/STED DATED 6/12/1987.

¶30

P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ABOVE LETTER DATED 25/01/1968.

¶31

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY KSCSTE DATED 18/08/2010.

¶32

P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE SECRETARYOF THE CWRDM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION DATED 20/12/2010.

¶33

P6: N I L

¶34

P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶35

P8: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 3/2012/S & T DATED 16/04/2012.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

R3(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/05/2009 IN WPC.NO.13391 OF 2009 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶38

R3(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/05/2009 IN W.A.NO.1108 OF 2009 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶39

R3(C): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2009 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) CC.NO.14636 OF 2009 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶44

¶45

W.P.(c) Nos.6553 & 15797 OF 2011

¶46

¶47

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2012

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

The issue involved in both these cases is in relation to the age of retirement, in view of the decision taken by the Government and also by the respondent Council, to have it enhanced to 60 years, from 58 years.

¶50

The petitioners are working in different capacities and as per the relevant Rules/Bye-laws of the respondent Council, they were to retire on attaining the age of superannuation at 58 years. By virtue of the subsequent developments, the Government took a decision and issued an order dated 16/04/2012, whereby the retirement age was enhanced to 60 years, based on which, the Council also took a decision on the same day, enhancing the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years. But considering the fact that the recommendation of the Council was on 15/09/2011, the Council decided to give effect to the said order only from 15/09/2011 i.e. in respect of persons whose date of

¶51

W.P.(C)Nos.6553 & 15797 of 2011

¶52

¶53

superannuation came to be on or after 15.09.2011, enabling the persons, who are already in service to continue upto the age of 60 years. The Council also decided to send communication to the persons, who retired from the service after 15.09.2011, permitting them to rejoin duty and they are continuing as such. The case of the Council is that petitioners' case stands on a different footing as they crossed the earlier retirement age of 58 years prior to 15.09.2011 and hence they are not entitled to be reengaged and continued till the age of 60 years.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in differentiating the service of the petitioners and there is no rationale in prescribing the cut off date. It is stated that the petitioners are supported by binding precedents rendered by the Apex Court including in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130). The learned counsel submits that the relief now pressed before this Court is for an opportunity to substantiate the facts and figures before the Council, by filing a detailed representation.

¶55

It is brought to the notice of this Court that in W.P.(C) No.6553/2011, petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are still continuing in service and

¶56

¶57

W.P.(C)Nos.6553 & 15797 of 2011

¶58

are entitled to the benefit of the Government Order as well as the decision taken by the Council enhancing the retirement age from 58 to 60 years and the dispute is only in respect of the service of the first petitioner, who stands retired from the service. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Council submits that the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6553/2011 and the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.15797/2011 are already out of service and they have obtained retirement benefits, pursuant to crossing the retirement age as it existed earlier. The factual position is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the receipt of retirement benefits. However, in view of the limited nature of the relief now pressed, this Court does not find it necessary to go into such facts and figurers. Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.15797/2011 and the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6553/2011 are set at liberty to file a detailed representation before the Council within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the representatives of the petitioners in both

¶59

W.P.(C)Nos.6553 & 15797 of 2011

¶60

¶61

the cases. Such orders shall be passed at the earliest, at any rate within

¶62

two months thereafter.

¶63

Both the matters are disposed of accordingly.

¶64

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶65

sv.

¶66

W.P.(C)Nos.6553 & 15797 of 2011

¶67

T.P.Abdul Hakkim and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Abdul Hakkim and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Habna Jose Vs the Director of Public Instruction

E.Geethakumari Vs State of Kerala

P.Manoharan Vs the State of Kerala

M. Noorjahan Vs Municipal Secretary

Seena K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

C.Kalavathy Vs State of Kerala