IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27422 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. E.K.SASIKUMAR, S/O.MADHAAN NAIR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, WORKS DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KUSAT PO,THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM DIST,. 2. V.R.SUGATHAN, S/O.C.K.MADHAVAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,(NON-CADRE) WORKS DEPARTMENT,OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SABARIMALA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1&2 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27422 OF 2009 (W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are working as Assistant Engineers under the first respondent. Prayer sought is to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P1, by which date of retirement has been unified as 31.3.2009 to the employees of the first respondent, including the petitioners. It is stated that the Board considered the matter and passed Ext.P2 deciding not to adopt the Government Order for the time being. According to the petitioners Ext.P2 does not disclose a final decision and that the Board should consider the matter afresh. It is also their case that having regard to Ext.P9, the Rules regarding service conditions of Devaswom Employees, service rules of the State Government Employees are applicable to the employees of the Devaswom Board also and for that reason they are entitled to have the benefit of Ext.P1 extended to them as well. 2. However, Standing Counsel for the respondent Board has invited my attention to Rule 6 of Ext.P9 Rules referred to above, WPC.No.27422 /09 :2 : which provides that in spite of Ext.P9, Rules 20 to 25 of the Travancore Devaswom Servant's Recruitment Service and Conduct Rules 1952, framed under Section 35(2)(e) of the Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 will remain in force. He referred to Rule 20 of the said Rules which provides that no officer shall be retained in service after the completion of 55 years of age. Therefore it is submitted that as far as the Board is concerned, 55 is the age of retirement. It is also stated that the issue as to whether the Rule should be amended in view of Ext.P1 was considered by the Board and Ext.P2 decision was taken. Thereafter the matter was again considered and on 3.6.2009 it was decided not to review its earlier decision. Age of retirement is a matter to be covered by the Rules framed by the employer. In this case, the Rule 20 of the Rules referred to above prescribed 55 as the age of retirement. In view of Rule 20 read with Rule 6 of Ext.P9, KSR or other Rules governing Government Employees can have no relevance, at least in so far as the retirement age is concerned. If that be so, unless the Board as its own decided to extend the benefit of Ext.P1, the petitioners WPC.No.27422 /09 :3 : cannot insist the Board should increase the age of retirement. It is also pointed out that a similar case has been considered by this court in WP(c).No.16128/09 and was dismissed by judgment dated 28.8.2009. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/