IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1358 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.6354/2009 Dated 23/03/2009 APPELLANT: PETITIONER THOMAS KURIAN, PROJECTIONIST, (NOW SUPERANNUATED), DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, (KIZHAKUMVELITHARA,CHAMPAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA). BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE (RULES) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1358 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is working under the respondents as a Projectionist. The appellant attained the age 55 on 19.2.2009. By virtue of Rule 60(a) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, he has already retired from service. The Writ Petition was filed by him seeking a declaration that Rule 60(a) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules is arbitrary and unconstitutional, to the extent it restricts the age of retirement of State Government employees to 55. As long as Rule 60(a) remains in the statute, the petitioner was liable to retire on the last date of the month in which he attained the age of 55. What should be the retirement age is a matter of policy for the Government to decide. No court can direct the Government to modify the rules in this regard. Therefore, the Writ Petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. W.A. NO. 1358/2009 2 2. The point raised by the appellant is already covered by the two decisions relied on by the learned Single Judge. We also notice that there is an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 670 of 2008 dated 14.3.2008 which supports the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1358/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1358/2009 JUDGMENT 3rd July, 2009 W.A. NO. 1358/2009 4