Disposed

Muraleedharan.M., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2022WP(C)/24023/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex-servicemen petitioned for relief from discrimination regarding the upper age limit for service. The court directed respondents to treat the petition as a representation and decide the grievance within one month after a hearing, staying the termination order.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat petition as representation, afford hearing, and decide within one month. Termination order stayed.

Muraleedharan.M., Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24023 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MURALEEDHARAN.M., AGED 61 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, SREE KARTHIKA, MANNOOTTU KONAM, PAYATTUVILA P.O., KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 501.

¶8

2 EDISON.A., AGED 60 YEARS S/O.ALPHONSAKUTTY, KUZHIVILAKAM, VALIYATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 009.

¶9

BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2 KERALA STATE EX SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION (KEXCON), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP.AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD(PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION (HEAD OFFICE), CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, R3 SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.24023/2022

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are ex-servicemen empanelled in the panel of security staff maintained by respondent No.2 and working as security in the office of respondent No.3.

¶20

The Government of Kerala constituted respondent No.2 as per order dated 23.06.2005. Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 31.05.2022 informed the petitioners that due to the reason of crossing the prescribed age limit i.e., sixty(60) years they will be relieved from the service.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the State of Kerala had promulgated an Act known as Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 which prescribed the upper age limit of a security personal as sixty five (65) years. Though the petitioners are also ex-servicemen, but are not private security agencies are being discriminated and not allowed to work till the age of sixty five(65) years.

¶22

A Division Bench of this Court while considering this issue had directed the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) to consider whether the exservicemen employed in KSEB would also be allowed

¶23

to work till sixty five(65) years or not and the matter is pending.

¶24

WP(C) No.24023/2022

¶25

¶26

Similarly placed Ex-servicemen who were issued with similar notices, have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19778 of 2022 challengeing the said notice and this Court vide interim order dated 17.6.2022 directed the second respondent not to terminate the petitioners in the said Writ Petition.

¶27

6. Section 10 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 reads as under:

¶28

“Eligibility to be a private security guard: (1) a private security agency shall not employee or engage any person as a private security guard unless he - (a) A citizen of India or a citizen of such other country as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; (b)Has completed eighteen years of age but has not attained the age of 65 years. (c) Satisfies the agency about his character and antecedents in such a manner as may be prescribed; (d) Has completed the prescribed security training successfully; (e) Fulfills such physical standards as may be prescribed; and (f) Satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed.”

¶29

By virtue of Ext.P1, the petitioners had been relieved from

¶30

the service on attaining the age of sixty(60) years. In my view, prima facie it is a case of discrimination where the ex service men employed under the Act are allowed to continue at the age of 65 in other departments whereas those empaneled with the respondent No.2, at the age of sixty(60).

¶31

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the

¶32

WP(C) No.24023/2022

¶33

¶34

respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners by treating this writ petition as a representation and decide the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing much less in accordance with law. Till such time Ext.P1 order is ordered to be kept in abeyance.

¶35

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

csl

WP(C) No.24023/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24023/2022

¶40

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN WA NO.1035/2021. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.06.2O22 IN WPC NO.19778/2022.

¶42

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES

¶43

NIL

Muraleedharan.M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan.M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Remani Amma Vs the Proprietor

Vasudevan v. Vs the State of Kerala

Shijo P. Sivadasan Vs the State of Kerala

Sunish K.v., Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

Thajima, Vs State of Kerala

Dr.S.Babaprasad Vs the District Collector