Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

"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

 

Similar News