Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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