IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32809 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. P.P.ANAND, S/O.P.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1/1643, ABHAYAM, P.VELAYUDHAN MASTER LANE, FORT KOCHI - 682 001. 2. M.S.SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRUTHI, NEAR KINAR JUNCTION, PATTUPURACKAL ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA - 682 301. 3. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREELAYAM, THOTTAKAM P.O., VAIKOM 686 145. 4. A.R.MANI, S/O.RAVUNNI, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT ALACKAPPALLY, KANNACHANTHODU, KOCHI - 18. 5. N.T.PREMACHANDRAN, S/O.KUNHUNNI NAMBIAR, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREE SIVA, CHOVVA P.O., KANNOOR - 670 006. BY ADVS. SRI.P.I.GEORGEKUTTY, SRI.BINU.K.C. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM W.P.(C). NO.32809/2010-A: 2. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN – 695 001. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, R2 BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 32809 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are retired employees of the 2nd respondent. They retired during the year 2005-06. The scales of pay of employees of the 2nd respondent were revised with effect from 01.09.2007. The petitioners had to retire at the age of 55 years since the age of retirement was reduced from 58 to 55 years. According to the petitioners after the retirement of the petitioners, the retirement age was again enhanced to 58 years. As a result, the petitioners did not get the benefits of the pay revision since they retired from the service prior to the date of implementation of the pay revision order. It is under the above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other Writ, Order or Direction quashing Exts P4, P5 and P6 in as much as the same are against public policy. ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other Writ, Order or Direction fixing the day for revised scales of pay to the W.P.(C)No. 32809 of 2010 -2- employees of the 2nd respondent with effect from 1.7.2004 enabling the petitioners to enjoy the benefit of the pay revision which was unjustly denied to them. iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other Writ, Order or Direction refixing the pension benefits to the petitioners with effect from 1.7.2004.” 2. Exts.P4 and P5 are the orders on pay revision and Ext.P6 is the communication issued to the 5th petitioner rejecting the representation in this regard. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent points out that, the decision to enhance the retirement age to 58 years after the retirement of the petitioners was not as per a decision of the respondents but as per the directions of this court and that question is pending consideration before the Government as per a direction of this court in appeal and for the present the retirement age is continues to be 55 years. 3. Essentially what the petitioners want is to direct revision of scales of pay of the employees of the 2nd respondent with effect from a date prior to the date of retirement of the petitioners. I do not think that, this court W.P.(C)No. 32809 of 2010 -3- can do so. It is for the respondents to decide as to with effect from what date the pay revision has to be implemented. That decision is to be taken after considering various aspects of the matter like the existing pay, the financial condition of the 2nd respondent etc. This court cannot direct that, the pay revision be implemented with effect from a particular anterior date. No employee has any right which can be enforced through court to demand that the pay revision should be with effect from a particular date. The contention of the petitioners is that the pay revision has to be with effect from the 6th year after the previous pay revision. I am of opinion that there is no law which requires that the pay of employees in the Government section has to be revised every years. Whether to revise pay and from what date revision has to be made are policy decisions to be taken by the respondents on the basis of various factors which are relevant for taking such a decision. Insofar as there are no malafides in the decision taken, this court cannot interfere with such policy decision. W.P.(C)No. 32809 of 2010 -4- Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/