Allowed

Vasudevan K R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2022WP(C)/4889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Department of Agriculture to expeditiously consider a recommendation to enhance employees' retirement age from 58 to 60. The petitioner was allowed to continue in service until the department communicates its decision and the Corporation Board takes its own decision.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 recommendation and take an appropriate decision expeditiously; petitioner allowed to continue in service till Board decision.

Vasudevan K R Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 4889 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 4889 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VASUDEVAN K R AGED 57 YEARS SON OF RAMAN RAMAN, LEKSHAM VEEDU NO. 11, KUDAMUKKU, MAMMOODU P.O., KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689513 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN MANASI.M

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA LABOUR DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 686002

¶12

3 THE MANAGER THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED CHANDANAPPALLY ESTATE, NEDUMONKAVU P.O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689693

¶13

4 PRINCIPLE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS WELFARE, SECRETARIAT (ANNEX II), THIRUVNANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. SRI. VENUGOPAL. V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. N.RAJESH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 & R3

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 4889 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2022

¶19

The petitioner is a Tapper Worker in the Chandanappally Estate of the Plantation Corporation Ltd. As per the existing norms, the age of superannuation of the employees of the Plantation Corporation is 58 years. By Ext.P2 Order, the Labour Department has recommended enhancement of the age of superannuation to 60 years. This writ petition was necessitated, since the petitioner is served with Ext.P3 communication, informing that he would have to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years. This Court passed an interim order, permitting the petitioner to continue.

¶20

Learned Government Pleader pointed out

¶21

that Ext.P2 recommendation is by the Labour Department, whereas the Plantation Corporation comes under the Agriculture Department. Therefore, the recommendation, if any, ought to be made by the Agriculture Department.

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 4889 OF 2022

¶24

Learned Standing Counsel for the Plantation Corporation submitted that, the Corporation has

¶25

already addressed the Government with a request to enhance the retirement age of its employees.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P5 judgment rendered by this Court in the case of similarly placed employees. Therein, the Government was directed to take expeditious decision on Ext.P2 recommendation. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 judgment, in

¶27

so far as the petitioners were not permitted to continue in service till a decision is taken, the petitioners preferred a Writ Appeal and by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court modified Ext.P5 judgment by observing that the Plantation Corporation shall permit the petitioners therein to continue till a decision is taken on Ext.P2 order.

¶28

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, learned Government Pleader and being bound by the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, as modified by Ext.P6, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent to consider the recommendation in Ext.P2

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 4889 OF 2022

¶31

and to take an appropriate decision thereon, expeditiously. Once the decision is taken and communicated to the Plantation Corporation, it shall be placed before the Board of Corporation for consideration. Till such time as the Board takes its decision, the petitioner shall allowed to continue in service.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/25-5

WP(C) NO. 4889 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4889/2022

¶39

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 22.01.2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 18.02.2021 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 10548 OF 2021 DATED 27.04.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.10548 OF 2021 DATED 22.11.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W. A NO. 1615 OF 2021 DATED 03.12.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶41

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

¶42

TRUE COPY

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

Vasudevan K R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudevan K R 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathian K.C, Vs State of Kerala

Vancheeswara Iyar @ Raja Vs P.v.Narayanaswamy

Vancheeswara Iyar Vs P.v.Narayanswamy

Sindhu Pramod Vs District Kudumbasree Mission Co-Ordinator

M/S.Himavarsha Kuries Private Limited (in Liquidation) Vs Lizy Jose

Ajith Kumar.S.K., Vs Union of India