IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27284 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIVAN.V.A, WORKER SUPERVISOR, T.NO.4051/M273,HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD, KALAMASSERRY, REP.BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD, KALAMASSERRY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT LTD, BALLARY ROAD, BANGALORE. 3. UNION OF INDIA,. REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011. ADV. SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R3 SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30698 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.27284 & 30698/09 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are employees of the first respondent company. Going by the conditions of service, as per the age of retirement that is prescribed, petitioners have to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. All have accordingly retired from service. According to the petitioners, a proposal for enhancing the age of retirement to 60 years is pending consideration of the Government of India. It is stated that, while so they were issued notices requiring them to retire at the age of 58 years. It is in these circumstances the writ petitions were filed. 2. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have already moved the 3rd respondent, the Government of India for giving them the benefit of enhancement and that the representations are also pending. 3. As on the date when the petitioners attained 58 years, in terms of the conditions of service they were to retire and accordingly they have retired from service. Therefore, even if the WPC .NO.27284/09 & anor. :2 : age of retirement is subsequently enhanced unless the Government of India or the Company implement such enhancement with retrospective effect, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit thereof. 4. Now that according to the petitioners they have filed representations before the 3rd respondent, it will be open to the petitioners to pursue the matter before the 3rd respondent, in which event the same shall be considered untrammelled by the observations contained in this judgment. Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/