IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 24492 of 2007(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PUSHPAKUMARI B,AUDITOR,KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,REGIONAL PRODUCTION CENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PUSPA NIVAS,NARUVAMOODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,HEAD OFFICE,POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR, R2 & R3 BY ADVS. MR.A.ABDUL KHARIM, MR.M.R.RAJESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 33411/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24492/2007-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.300/99/AD DTD. 18/10/99. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 03/04/98 BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 1613/A/HPDC/2000/0541 DTD. 13/11/2000 OF THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. DTD. 23/07/07. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 24492 & 33411 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these two writ petitions are retired employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Their claim in these two writ petitions is either to grant them pensionary benefits as provided under the Kerala Service Rules or to permit them to continue in service till they attain 58 years. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that as is evidenced by the documents produced, the petitioners are governed by the Kerala Service Rules, in the absence of any service rules framed by the 2nd respondent-Corporation. The petitioners were originally employees of a Government Company, viz. M/s. Meat Produces of India Ltd. They were originally sent on deputation to the 2nd respondent-Corporation and later on absorbed in the 2nd respondent-Corporation. They were told that their service would be regulated by the provisions of K.S.R. According to them, K.S.R provides for pension. When K.S.R has been made applicable to them, they are entitled to pensionary benefits also as provided under the K.S.R, is the contention raised. They would make an alternate contention that if Part III of KSR is not applicable to the petitioners, then they should be allowed to continue in service till they attain 58 years of age in so far as the retirement age of employees of similarly situated Government undertakings is 58 years. They also point out that for the purpose of getting maximum pension under the employees pension scheme of the provident fund organisation, a person would have to work till 58 years. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation wherein it is stated that the petitioners are members of the employees provident fund under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and they are eligible for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme under that Act. Therefore, according to the Corporation, the provisions of K.S.R as regards pension applicable to Government employees is not applicable to the employees of the Corporation. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Admittedly, the service under the Corporation is not pensionable service. Neither the Corporation nor the Government has taken a policy decision to make the service under the Corporation a pensionable service. Although the conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation are regulated by the provisions of K.S.R. by adoption, that does not ipso facto mean that the Corporation has accepted the service under it as a pensionable service. For the service under the Corporation to be made a pensionable, there should be conscious policy decision in that regard, which, admittedly, neither the Corporation nor the Government has taken. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled to pension as per the provisions of the Kerala Service Rules. 6. The petitioners raise another contention that they are entitled to continue in service till they attain the age of 58 years. According to them, this is one of the few Government autonomous bodies where the retirement age is till 55. In most other Government autonomous bodies, the age of retirement is 58 or 60. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Manoharan C. and others v. Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, ILR 2007 (3) Ker. 43 and Kavirajan v. K.S.B.C. Ltd., 2007(2) KLT 917, the petitioners would contend that their retirement age should be enhanced to 58 years and they should be allowed to continue in service till 58 years. They would also contend that there is no order fixing the retirement age of employees of the 2nd respondent-Corporation. But on a specific question put by the Court, the petitioners admit that they have no case that any other employee of the Corporation has been allowed to continue beyond 55 years. That means, the employees of the Corporation are being retired at the age of 55 years. Therefore, it is clear that the Corporation uniformly applies 55 years of age as the superannuation age. In such circumstances, I have to hold that the age of superannuation in the 2nd respondent-Corporation is 55 years. 7. As far as the decisions referred to by the petitioners are concerned, they are decisions considering the validity of the Government Orders refusing approval to the decisions of the Board of Directors of the Government Companies for enhancing the retirement age. This Court only held that being autonomous bodies, the decision of the Board of Directors cannot be interfered with by the Government although they are Government owned. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that in Manoharan's case (supra), even when the Company reversed the decision to enhance the retirement age, this Court interfered and directed to maintain the retirement age as enhanced. On a reading of Manoharan's case, it is clear that this Court interfered only because the reason for reversing the earlier decision to enhance the retirement age was the denial of approval by the Government. In the case of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has not taken a policy decision to enhance the retirement age of its employees. This Court cannot direct an autonomous body to raise the retirement age of its employees in so far as it would be beyond the powers of this Court . It is for the employer to decide the retirement age of its employees. If the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable, it is for the employees of the Corporation to take up the question of raising of the retirement age by raising an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court cannot direct an employer to raise the retirement age of its employees. Therefore, I do not find any merit in that contention also raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/