IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 22537 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K. MANI, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RETD.), CHELLAS, NEAR KANAKALAYA BANK, WEST HILL.5, PIN - 673 005. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.22537 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a pensioner and a physically handicapped person. He retired from service on 31.12.2007. He had earlier moved this Court and the State Government seeking continuance in service beyond the age of superannuation. That request was ultimately rejected by Ext.P13 order dated 9.6.2008. This Writ Petition was thereupon filed challenging Ext.P13 order and seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the entire records leading upto Exhibit P13 and; to quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to retain the petitioner in service till he attain the age of 58 years. (iii) to direct the respondent to consider Exhibit P14 favourably permitting the petitioner to continue in service till completion of 58 years. (iv) to issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. (v) to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to retain the petitioner in service till a proper decision is taken on Exhibit P9 by the Government.” 2. The question whether having regard to public interest, the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service beyond the age of retirement or not, is essentially a matter for the State Government to WP(C) 22537/08 -: 2 :- decide. The State Government have in Ext.P13 examined the petitioner's request and rejected his claim for continuance after attaining the age of superannuation on the ground that his physical disability alone is not a ground to grant that request. If the petitioner's request is granted, it will lead to a situation where every pensioner will move the Government claiming continuance in service after retirement. In other words, if such claims are entertained, the rules prescribing the age of retirement will remain a dead letter. The claim of the petitioner for continuance in service was therefore rightly rejected by the State Government. In my opinion, the challenge to Ext.P13 is without merit. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. 3. Sri.M.V.Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has moved the Chief Secretary to Government in Ext.P14 representation claiming re-employment under Rule 36 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 and that the dismissal of the Writ Petition may not stand in the way of the Government considering Ext.P14. I make it clear that the dismissal of this Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the Government considering the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P14 for re-employment if grounds exist therefor. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 3/11