A.Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

1

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

2025:KER:28892

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 18190OF 2024

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

A. SATHYAN

¶11

AGED 56 YEARS, S/O C. AYYAPPAN,
ANANTHABHAVAN, CHIRAYILKONAM, VETTINAD,

¶12

VATTAPARA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695028.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

T.C.KRISHNA

¶15

ASHA S.V
GOKUL KRISHNA
GOPI KRISHNA R.

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶18

2 THE DIRECTOR OF HOMEOPATHY [CORRECTED], DIRECTORATE OF HOMEOPATHY, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶19

[DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, SANTHI
NAGAR, PULUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA 696 001.

¶20

(2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AND REPLACED AS PER
ORDER DATED 24.07.2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN
WP(C)18190/2024].

¶21

2

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶23

2025:KER:28892

¶24

3 THE CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶25

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695002.

¶26

BY ADV.

¶27

 BIMALK. NATH-SR.GP

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶31

2025:KER:28892

¶32

D. K. SINGH, J.

¶33

-------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2025

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is working as security staff under the 3^rd respondent Hospital Development Society/Hospital Management Committee at the Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on a contract basis under National Health Mission, a program of the Central Government for providing health services to the public in general. The petitioner got retired on 31.03.2024 on attaining the age of 56 years.

¶38

The petitioner has approached this court for the following

¶39

prayers:-

¶40

i. To issue writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P7, as it is arbitrary and issued without application of mind and without considering Exhibits P2-P4 as directed in Exhibit P6 Judgement. ii. To declare that the daily wage employees under the HDS of Hospitals under the 2nd respondent, including the Petitioner herein, are eligible and entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation from 56 to 65, as those granted as per Exhibit P2 to their counterparts in the Health & Family Welfare Department.

¶41

4

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶43

2025:KER:28892

¶44

iii. To declare that the Petitioner is eligible to continue to the age of 65 years or in the alternative upto the age of 60 years in accordance with Rule 60(b) of Part III KSR.

¶45

iv. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P5 within a time frame.

¶46

v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

¶47

The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Government order dated 02.08.2018, in which it has been stated that the retirement age with regard to the persons employed on a contract basis under the Hospital Development Society, Hospital Development Committee / Hospital Management Committee, etc under the project funded by Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana has not been fixed. Therefore, the Government ordered that the maximum age upto which the person could be employed on contract basis under the National Health Mission, a program funded by the Central Government under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana will be 65 years.

¶48

Even if one considers the language employed in the said Government order, it gives discretion to the hospital authorities concerned to keep the person engaged on a contract basis under the

¶49

5

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶51

2025:KER:28892

¶52

National Health Mission up to 65 years of age. The said Government order does not confer any indefeasible right on the person employed on a contract basis under the National Health Mission to continue till he/she attains the age of 65 years. It is left to the discretion of hospital authority to keep the person engaged on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years.

¶53

Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right under the contract or as per the Government order dated 02.08.2018 to remain in employment on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years.

¶54

However, the petitioner may be given employment after he has attained the age of 56 years for a further period on a contract basis, depending on the availability of the work and his conduct and performance. Such a decision shall be decided only by the hospital authority, and this Court cannot issue a mandamus for engaging the petitioner on a contract basis in the National Health Mission after he attained the age of 56 years and allow him to continue till he attains the age of 65 years.

¶55

A similar view has been taken by the Single Bench of this court in the judgment dated 13.02.2024 W.P.(C) No.3441/2023. Paragraph

¶56

6

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶58

2025:KER:28892

¶59

7 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-

¶60

“7. A perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that the Government has ordered the maximum age up to a person would be employed on a contract basis under Hospital Development Society, etc., to be 65. So it does not fix the retirement age at 65. However, the concerned employer is given the discretion to allow persons employed on a contract basis to work till the age of 65 years. So, the petitioners cannot claim that they may be permitted to be engaged till the age of 65 years.”

¶61

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition

¶62

stands disposed of.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

D. K. SINGH JUDGE

¶65

Svn

¶66

7

¶67

W.P.(C) No. 18190 of 2024

¶68

2025:KER:28892

¶69

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18190/2024

¶70

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶71

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.
B/481/12/AVCH DATED 20.04.2012. ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO. 2466/2018/H&FWD
DATED 02-08-2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03-01-2022 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 . TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO. 535/90/FIN DATED
25-10-1990
EXHIBIT P5 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2024
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO.
6337/2024 DATED 15-03-2024
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 162/2024/AYUSH
DATED 08-05-2024

¶72

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3

¶73

ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1

¶74

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶75

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF DECLARATION DATED 25-04-2012
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
SECRETARY, HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B/35/2023/AVCH DATED
31/05/2023 ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT,
AYURVEDA COLLEGE

A.Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod P., S/O.Peethambharan P.K. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

D.Sudhakaran Vs Canara Bank Represented by the Chairman & Managing Director

Mohammed Sherif V.P. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Gosalakrishnan Nair v Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Mithun. S. Ghosh Vs Airports Authority of India

Absel B Vs the Airports Authority of India