IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16390 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAILOR CYRIAC, MANAGER [WORKS], THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION [IM] KERALA LIMITED THRISSUR. 2. T.G.VIJAYAN, MANAGER [INTERNAL AUDIT], THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION [IM] KERALA LIMITED THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION [IM] KERALA LIMITED, THRISSUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION [IM] KERALA LIMITED THRISSUR - 680 001. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, THE PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION [IM] KERALA LIMITED THRISSUR - 680 001. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU BY SC SRI. E.K. MADHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.16390 OF 2010 (W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is working as Manager(Works) and the 2nd petitioner is working as Manager(Internal Auditor) of the first respondent. 2. The claim of the petitioners is that though they are to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, in view of Exts.P2 and P3, they are entitled to continue in service till the end of the financial year. In support of this contention, apart from the aforesaid Government Orders, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P4 judgment of this court in WP(c).No.13604/2009. 3. In my view, there is no merit in the claim raised. By Ext.P2, the Government have unified the date of retirement in so far as the Government employees and teachers are concerned. By Ext.P3, the benefit of Ext.P2 was extended to the employees of the Public Sector undertakings. Autonomous Bodies are subject to decision by their governing Bodies. 4. In this case the petitioners have no case that Exts.P2 and P3 orders have been adopted by the Board of Directors of the WPC.No. 16390/2010 :2 : first respondent. Age of retirement, is covered by the provisions of Ext.P1 bye-laws of the first respondent and as per clause 2.71 the employee are to retire on attaining 58 years. If the Director of the Board of the first respondent have not adopted ExtP2 and P3 as required in Ext.P3, the employees are to retire on attaining the age of 58 years specified in Ext.P1 bye laws. 5. In so far as Ext.P4 judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it was rendered in a case where a Professor of a College affiliated to Calicut University claimed right to continue till the end of the financial year. This claim was upheld by this court for the reason that KSR was adopted by the University and that KSR was amended incorporating the changes brought out by Ext.P2. In so far as the employees of the first respondent is concerned, as is seen from clause 3.3 of Ext.P1 bye laws, the rules of KSR governing pay fixation alone have been adopted by it. In that view of the matter Ext.P4 judgment also cannot be relied on by th petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 16390/2010 :3 :