Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: 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