Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

"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