Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme Court

Kerala High Court Urges Government to Reconsider Enhancement of Retirement Age for Meritorious Employees

03 September 2024 10:29 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court bench comprising of Mr. A.Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas, JJ., urged the government to reconsider the enhancement of the retirement age for meritorious employees. The court emphasized the importance of protecting institutional interest and ensuring the smooth functioning of the High Court.

The court observed, "The proposal to enhance the retirement age of meritorious employees is in the best interest of the administration of the institution." It further stated, "The different institutions of the State are to be coordinated in their efforts to achieve what is best in the larger interest of the Institution."

The judgment pertains to a series of writ petitions filed by employees of the High Court of Kerala, seeking an increase in the retirement age from 56 to 58 years. The Chief Justice had proposed the enhancement, taking into account the service records and integrity of the employees.

However, the government had rejected the proposal, citing the retirement age of government servants as the reason. The court noted that while the Chief Justice has the authority to determine service conditions, the retirement age is ultimately determined by the state legislature.

Highlighting the constitutional provisions, the court stated, "The request of the Chief Justice can only be treated as a proposal for favorable consideration for initiating suitable amendment to the law." It added, "The government cannot outrightly reject the proposal without proper deliberations and consideration."

The court referred to the need for comity between different institutions and the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary. It emphasized that the government should give due consideration to the proposal, which focuses on extending the service of meritorious employees beyond the age of 56.

Kerala High Court remitted the matter back to the government, urging them to reconsider the proposal for the enhancement of the retirement age. The judgment highlights the significance of coordination and mutual respect among institutions for the efficient functioning of the constitutional polity.

Date of Judgment: 31.05.2023

Ajith Kumar V.S. and Ors. vs State Of Kerala and Ors.

Latest Legal News