Disposed

Chandran C v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2023WP(C)/27901/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging the 60-year upper age limit for Ex-Servicemen working as security guards. The one judge court held that the 60-year limit is a valid policy decision by KEXCON board. Instead, it directed KEXCON to consider requests from petitioners aged 60-62 to extend service. Petitioners are permitted to continue in service until that decision is made.

What did the court decide?

This Court did not interfere with the 60-year age policy. It directed KEXCON to consider requests from petitioners aged 60-62 for extension and permitted their continued service until such decision is

Chandran C Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19778 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SREEKUMARAN NAIR A. AGED 61 YEARS S/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SARADA NIVAS, BHASKARA NAGAR, VENPAKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695123.

¶8

2 GANGADHARAN. M., AGED 61, S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, KAVUVILAKAM VEEDU, MARYAPURAM P.O., AMARAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695122.

¶9

3 VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR.K., AGED 61, S/O KESAVAN NAIR, KESAVA MANDIRAM, PANANGODU, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695523.

¶10

4 SOBHANAKUMAR, AGED 61, S/O NANUKUTTAN NAIR, LALITHA SADANAM, KALLIYOOR, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, PIN : 695041.

¶11

5 ASOKAKUMAR.R., AGED 61, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, RAHUL BHAVAN, ANCHUVANNI, KANNARAVILA, NELLIMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN : 695524.

¶12

BY ADVS.
K.RAJESH KANNAN
P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR
M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶15

2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION (KEXCON), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶16

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶17

¶18

3 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY (CDIT) REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHITHRANJALI HILLS, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN : 695027.

¶19

BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
S.RAMESH

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).12483/2023, 21587/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶22

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12483 OF 2023

¶26

PETITIONER:

¶27

VELAPPAN NAIR

¶28

AGED 60 YEARS

¶29

S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, LEELA VILASOM, NEAR VILAPPILSALA
DEVI TEMPLE, VILAPPILSALA (P.O.) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,
PIN - 695573

¶30

BY ADVS.
K.RAJESH KANNAN
P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶31

RESPONDENTS:

¶32

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶33

2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION (KEXCON), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶34

3 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY (CDIT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHITHRANJALI HILLS, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695027 BY ADV S.RAMESH

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19778/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶37

¶38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 21587 OF 2022

¶41

PETITIONER:

¶42

VIKRAMAN NAIR. B
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF BHASKARA PILLAI, DEVATHEERTHAM, NEERAZHI,
VELLANAD P.O, NEDUMANAGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN -
695543

¶43

BY ADVS.
K.RAJESH KANNAN
P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR
M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

¶44

RESPONDENTS:

¶45

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

¶46

2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMEN DEVELOPMENT REHABILITATION CORPORATION - KEXCON REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD ( PO ), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001

¶47

3THE SENIOR MANAGER
GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, THYCAUD TRIVANDRUM, DEPARTMENT
OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695014

¶48

BY ADV R.S.KALKURA
SRI.APPU P.S GP

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19778/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶51

¶52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶53

PRESENT

¶54

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 27901 OF 2022

¶55

PETITIONER:

¶56

CHANDRAN C
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O CHALLAPPAN NADAR, THEKKEMADATHI KUZHI VEEDU,
SATHYAN NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695019.

¶57

BY ADVS.
K.RAJESH KANNAN
P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶58

RESPONDENTS:

¶59

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
2KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION
CORPORATION (KEXCON),
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA
HOTEL, THYCAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
3EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
KWA (CONTROL UNIT BUILDING), PH DIVISION SOUTH
OBSERVATORY HILLS, JALABHAVAN VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶60

BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
GEORGIE JOHNY
SRI.APPU P.S

¶61

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19778/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022

& connected cases

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.19778/2022, 12483/2023, 21587/2022 &

¶67

27901/2022]

¶68

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2023

¶69

These writ petitions relate to the upper age limit for ExServicemen to work as a security guards under the 2^nd respondent Corporation.

¶70

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are Ex-Servicemen registered under the 2^nd respondent Corporation which is a only Government owned Corporation constituted for the purpose of rehabilitation of Ex-Servicemen. It is submitted that the upper age limit of security guards deployed by the 2^nd respondent Corporation was fixed as 62 years by a Board resolution dated 19/5/2015. The Ex-Servicemen were therefore being permitted to work as security guards till they attain the age of 62 years. While so, it is submitted that the KSEB, to which security guards were being deployed by the Corporation had taken a stand that only persons below the age of 60 years could be deployed to the said Government company. It is submitted that the said issue was taken up before this Court by individual Ex-

¶71

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶72

¶73

Serviceman by filing writ petitions. The matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1035/2021 and connected cases. Taking note of the decision taken by the Kerala State ExServiceman Development & Rehabilitation Corporation (KEXCON) to employ Ex-Servicemen till they attain the age of 62 years as security guards and the decision of the KSEBL that only persons below the age of 60 could be employed as security guards in the KSEBL, the Division Bench directed the consideration of the matter by the Government. It was stated that the KEXCON as well as the KSEBL are amenable to the policy directions to be issued by the Government and that therefore the question whether the maximum age should be 60, 62 or 65 is to be decided by the Government.

¶74

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the upper age of 65 provided under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was specifically adverted to by the Division Bench and was directed to be considered by the Government while taking up such issues. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a decision was taken by the Government in its power department with regard to the issue of upper age limit of

¶75

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶76

¶77

security guards deployed to the KSEBL and it was decided that the upper age limit should be fixed as 60. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits the Government Order dated 1/8/2022 passed by the Government specifically considered the issue of fixing of upper age of security guards deployed to the KSEBL in the light of the special requirements of the KSEBL and that it did not amount to any general decision. It is contended that the KEXCON which had fixed the age of 62 as the upper age limit by its resolution in 2015 could depart from the said upper age limit only in the case of persons deployed to the KSEBL and not otherwise.

¶78

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 2^nd respondent. It is contended therein that the 2^nd respondent has been established as a fully owned State Government company for the rehabilitation and welfare of Ex-Servicemen or widows and their dependents and the true copy of the Memorandum of Association is produced as R2(a). It is submitted that the Corporation is duty bound to rehabilitate as many Ex-Servicemen as possible and that there are 40,000 Ex-Servicemen registered with the 2^nd respondent for deployment on daily wages as part of their rehabilitation. Every year about 5,000 Ex-Servicemen are

¶79

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶80

¶81

being added to the large number of the existing Ex-Servicemen population and that the Corporation has a duty to take policy decisions taking note of the number of Ex-Servicemen and the general benefits that would accrue to the large number of persons who are awaiting rehabilitation. It is submitted that para 16 of the Articles of Association provides power in the Board of Directors to take necessary steps to carry out all or any of the objects of the Corporation. It is submitted that the Corporation had specifically considered the issue of fixing of upper age limit of Ex-Servicemen deployed as security guards. It is stated that taking into consideration the large number of registered Ex-Servicemen awaiting rehabilitation and also taking into consideration the requirement of it’s clients, the age criteria was being revised from time to time. Accordingly, on 28/4/2022 in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the 2^nd respondent, a resolution was passed after due deliberations, fixing the upper age limit of empanelled Ex-Servicemen as security staff deployed by the 2^nd respondent to various units as 60 years. It is therefore contended that the decision to fix the age limit as 60 being a policy decision taken by the competent authority of the Corporation, the same cannot be

¶82

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶83

¶84

challenged by the petitioners in these proceedings.

¶85

An additional counter affidavit has also been placed on

¶86

record, producing the Government order dated 1/8/2022 where by the Government had also directed the fixing of upper age limit of security guards deployed by the KEXCON to the KSEBL as 60 years.

¶87

The learned Government Pleader would also contend that the question with regard to deployment of Ex-Servicemen as security guards to the KSEBL had been specifically considered by the Government and it was felt that the upper age limit of 60 years is required to be maintained, in view of the fact that the KSEBL required robust and young persons as security guards.

¶88

The learned counsel appearing for the CDIT submits that the question of age limit is an issue which has to be considered by the KEXCON and that the CDIT has no say in the matter with regard to the upper age limit.

¶89

Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that Section 10 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 only provides the eligibility to be a private security guards. Section 10(1)(b) provides that a private security agency shall not employee or engage any person as a private security guard unless he has

¶90

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶91

¶92

completed 18 years of age but has not attained the age of 65 years. It is therefore clear that there was no age of retirement as such provided by the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. As far as the KEXCON is concerned, it is admittedly not a private security agency which is governed by the provisions of the 2005 Act. The upper age limit of persons to be engaged as security guards is a matter which has to be decided by the Board of Directors of the Corporation as provided in its Articles of Association. If that be so, the decision taken by the Corporation which is produced as Ext.R2(c) to limit the upper age limit of security guards as 60 years can only be seen as a policy decision which apparently is informed by the reasons as stated in the counter affidavit.

¶93

The learned counsel for the petitioner would thereupon submit that a reading of Ext.R2(c) would show that persons who have crossed the age of 60 years are also being engaged in the case of other units excluding the KSEBL and that atleast in the case of the writ petitioners herein, their claim to continue till the attain the age of 62 may be considered.

¶94

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed

¶95

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶96

¶97

of with a direction that in case the petitioners in these writ petitions approach the KEXCON with a request for permission to be engaged to till they attain the age of 62 years, the said request shall be considered by the KEXCON in accordance with law. It is made clear that, I have not interfered with the policy decision taken by the KEXCON in Ext.R2(c) and that the directions are being issued only due to the fact that the petitioners have continued beyond the age of 60 and are still being deployed in the light of the interim orders as passed by this Court. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the petitioners in these writ petitions will be permitted to continue in service.

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

ska

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022

& connected cases

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `1ST PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `2ND PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `3RD PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `4TH PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `5TH PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.5.2022` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN` `W.A. NO.1035/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES.`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R2(a)`	`TRUE COPY MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE` `2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit R2(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF G.O. (M.S) 179/2005/GAD DATED` `4/6/2005`
`Exhibit R2(C)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED` `28/4/2022 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE` `2ND RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION` `REGARDING UPPER AGE LIMIT`
`Exhibit R2 (e)`	`True copy of the G.O (Rt) No. 123/2022/ Power` `dated 1.8.2022`
`Exhibit R2 (d)`	`True copy of the common judgment dated` `12.10.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1035 of 2021,` `1000 of 2021 and 1038 of 2021`

¶106

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶107

¶108

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12483/2023

¶109

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.5.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN
W.A. NO.1035/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
16.8.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO: 19778/2022 OF THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.6.2022 IN
W.P. (C) NO.19778/2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA.

¶110

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022 & connected cases

¶111

¶112

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21587/2022

¶113

`PETITIONER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`		`TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE` `1ST PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P2`		`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2022` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P3`		`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN` `W.A. NO.1035/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES`
`RESPONDENT`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R2`	`( a )`	`True copy Memorandum of Association of the` `2nd respondent`
`PETITIONER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P4`		`TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED` `17.06.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO: 19778/2022`
`RESPONDENT`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R2`	`( b )`	`True copy of G.O. (Ms) 179/2005/GAD dated` `4.6.2005`
`Exhibit R2`	`( c )`	`True copy of the extract of minutes of the` `board meeting dated 28.04.2022 of the Board` `of Directors of the 2nd respondent with` `regard to the decision regarding upper age` `limit`
`Exhibit R2`	`(d)`	`True copy of the common judgment dated` `12.10.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1035 of 2021,` `1000 of 2021 and 1038 of 2021`
`Exhibit R2`	`(e)`	`True copy of the G.O (Rt) No. 123/2022/ Power` `dated 1.8.2022`

WP(C) Nos.19778/2022

& connected cases

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27901/2022

¶118

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.6.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
22.07.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. NO: 23775/2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2 ( c )True copy of the minutes of the meeting dated
28.04.2022 of the Board of Directors of the
2nd respondent with regard to the decision
regarding upper age limit
Exhibit R2 ( d )True copy of the bilateral agreement executed
by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent
dated 06.12.2019
Exhibit R2 ( a )True copy Memorandum of Association of the
2nd respondent
Exhibit R2 ( b )True copy of G.O. (Ms) 179/2005/GAD dated
4.6.2005
Exhibit R2 ( e )True copy of the common judgment dated
12.10.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1035 of 2021,
1000 of 2021 and 1038 of 2021
Exhibit R2 ( f )True copy of the G.O (Rt) No. 123/2022/ Power
dated 1.8.2022 issued by the 1st respondent

Chandran C v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran C 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nicolas P. Dias Vs the Chief Town Planner

Nicolas P. Dias, Vs the State of Kerala

N. Vasavan Vs Smt. Jayasree T.K

Robert Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Raheema. C.A Vs Vishnu Raj

N.Vijayan Vs Suma.S