Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"Retirement Age is a Policy Matter Within the State's Domain": Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Decision on Retirement Age for Homeopathic Faculty

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Kerala High Court's decision denying the extension of retirement age for the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in the State of Kerala. The appellants had sought an extension of their retirement age from 55 to 60 years, similar to the benefit extended to Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service.

The Supreme Court emphasized, "Retirement age is a policy matter within the State's domain," adding that the courts should not interfere in such policy decisions. The judgement further stated that whether the extension should be given retrospective or prospective effect is also a matter for the State to decide. [Para 11-13, 16-17]

The appellants had initially filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court had held that the matter was a policy decision and not open for judicial review. [Para 1-4]

The State of Kerala had issued a Government Order enhancing the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category from 55 to 60 years. However, this order explicitly excluded faculties in Dental, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Non-Medical categories, as well as Homeopathic Medical Colleges. [Para 2-3]

During the pendency of the appeal, the State issued new Government Orders extending the retirement age for Dental and Ayurvedic faculties to 60 years. These were not given retrospective effect, thereby not benefiting those who had already retired. [Para 8-10, 14-15]

The Court also clarified that the appellants could not claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. [Para 18]

Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgement and dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. [Para 20]

Date of Decision: August 25, 2023

PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

 

Latest Legal News