IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 2531 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12429/2007 Dated 18/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ V.V.KOSHY, JAI BHAVAN, NRA 61, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------- 1. KERALA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., AARANGAKONAM, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE(D)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.V.G.ARUN R2 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A: JUDGMENT PASSED BY TH LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.28210/2005. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.4.2007 IN W.P.12429/2007. ANNEXURE-C: COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.5.2007 IN W.P.NO.12429/2007. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2531 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 18th July, 2007 in W.P(C). No. 12427 of 2007, the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instant appeal. 2. The appellant herein was an employee of the first respondent-Kerala Forest Development Corporation. As per the relevant rules of the Corporation, the age of superannuation of the employees of the said Corporation was 55 years. However, the Board of Directors of the said Corporation decided to enhance the age of superannuation of its employees to 58 years. Therefore, they sought approval of the Government by communication dated 11.3.2004 to permit the Corporation to alter the age of superannuation to 58 years. Such a permission was rejected by the State. Aggrieved by the said rejection, W.P.(C). No.28219 of 2005 came to be filed before this Court. By judgment dated 18th July, 2007, the said Writ Petition was allowed. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: WA.2531/07 2 “7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P4 and P6 are quashed. Following the decision of the Division Bench cited above, it is declared that the employees of the 1st respondent Corpiration are entitled to continue in service till the last date of the month in which they attain the age of 58 years. The petitioners continuing on the strength of interim orders will be allowed to continue till they reach the age of 58 years. Any of the petitioners who retired after the filing of the writ petition, either for want of interim order or vacation of interim order, shall be re-inducted and allowed to continue till they attain the age of 58 years. It is also clarified that the benefit of this declaration will apply to all employees who are in service as on this date. But, the limited retrospectivity given to the declaration will apply only to the writ petitioners in this and the connected writ petitioners, who have approached this Court while they were in service. In the case of persons who may be reinstated pursuant to this judgment, they are not entitled to get salary for the period they were out of service and have not actually worked. The persons who are working on the strength of interim orders, but without salary, shall be paid salary for the said period also.” 3. It can be seen from the above extract that while this Court held that the decision of the Government rejecting the representation of the first respondent-Corporation to alter the age of superannuation of its employees is illegal and impermissible, this Court held that the benefit of such a declaration would be WA.2531/07 3 available only to those employees, who were still in service of the first respondent Corporation on the date of the judgment and also to those employees, who had approached this Court while they were still in service seeking the benefit of age of superannuation at 58 years. 4. The appellant herein retired from service of the first respondent Corporation some time in the month of 2006 (this fact is not in dispute) and approached this Court in year 2007, i.e., after crossing the age of retirement. It appears as a matter of fact that on the date when the appellant was due to retire from the service of the first respondent Corporation, the appellant was in the service of another State owned Corporation called Kerala Power Finance Corporation (a Government Company within the meaning of Sections 16 and 17 of the Companies Act) on deputation initially working as General Manager of the Kerala Power Finance Corporation and later by order dated 3.3.2006, the appellant came to be appointed as the Managing Director of the said Corporation for a limited period of one year. 5. In the background of the abovementioned facts, by the judgment under appeal, the learned Judge declined to grant any relief in favour of the appellant only on the fact that the appellant WA.2531/07 4 did not approach this Court seeking the benefit of upper age limit of superannuation of 58 years in so far as the service of the first respondent Corporation is concerned. The judgment in W.P(C). No.28219 of 2009 has attained finality. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is, therefore dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs