Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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