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 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 417 of 2011() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.7858/2011 Dated 21/03/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- M.J.SUNNY, AGRICULTURAL SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BULL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- 1. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD., GOKULAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.C.JOSE, TYPIST, KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2011 ALONG WITH W.A.1004/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 417 of 2011 & W.A.No. 1004 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. W.A.No. 1004 of 2011 This appeal is filed by the second petitioner in W.P(C). No.7858 of 2011 aggrieved by an order dated 21st March, 2011. The grievance in the Writ Petition is regarding the age of superannuation of the employees of the first respondent-Board. It appears that as per the existing practice of the Board, the age of superannuation is 55 years, whereas the Government of Kerala decided to enhance the age of superannuation to 58 years with regard to many other State owned Boards, such as the first respondent. 2. Complaining that the non-extension of the benefit of the enhancement of age of superannuation of the employees of the first respondent Board is illegal and arbitrary, the appellant and others approached this Court by way of filing various Writ Petitions. It appears that some of the employees approached this WA.417 & 1004/11 2 Court after their retirement of attaining the age of 55 years and the appellant herein approached this Court even before. He sought interim order directing the respondents to continue the appellant in service during the pendency of the Writ Petition. By an order under appeal, the learned Judge declined to pass such an order with an observation that the retirement of the appellant would be subject to the result of the Writ Petition. Hence, the appeal. 3. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The appellant, if succeeds in the Writ Petition, would be entitled for the benefits of the extended service. The question whether the appellant would be entitled in the event of his success in the Writ Petition for wages and other emoluments for the period during which he did not actually work would also be examined at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition in the back- ground of relevant facts. Therefore, the Writ Appeals is dismissed at the admission stage itself. WA.417 & 1004/11 3 W.A.No.417 of 2011 The appellant herein is the first petitioner in W.P(C).No. 7858 of 2011. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is also dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs