IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32392 of 2006(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.C.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 59 YEARS, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD., ANGAMALI, NOW RESIDING AT 228-A, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-7. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (K) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (K) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. KERALA STATE BAMBOO CORPORATION LTD., REG.OFFICE P.B.NO.20 ANGAMALI SOUTH, 683 573, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR, ADV. SRI. B.S. KRISHNAN (SR.) ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.32392/2006: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 17/06/04 AS NO. G.O. (RT). NO. 586/2004/ID ISSUED BY THE R.1 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE R.3. CORPORATION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. G.O. MS. NO. 175/95/ID DTD. 02/11/1995. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/07/2006 OF THE R.2. AS NO. G.O. (RT). NO. 785/2006/ID. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 10/07/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ON 18/10/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REMINDER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. DTD. 03/03/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32392 of 2006 F ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as the Managing Director of the 3rd respondent Corporation under Ext.P1 order dated 17.6.2004. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to continue as the Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking under the Bureau of Public Enterprise up to the age of 60 years. By Ext.P4 order, the petitioner was intimated that M.R.Anil Kumar, Research Engineer (in charge) RTT Centre, Department of Agriculture, Government of Kerala, Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram has been appointed as Director and Managing Director of the 3rd respondent Corporation in the place of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that though there is no specific statement in Ext.P4 that the petitioner's services are terminated, in effect, he was replaced by another person. At that time, he had not completed 60 years. He is entitled to continue till 60 years, according to him. 2. Earlier, the petitioner was functioning as Managing Director of Small Industries Development W.P.(C).NO.32392/06 :: 2 :: Corporation (for short “SIDCO”) and according to him, his pay as the Managing Director of the SIDCO was not fixed. An application in this regard Ext.P5 is pending before the Government. The writ petition is filed, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years in the post of Managing Director. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has no right to insist that he should be allowed to continue up to the age of 60. The 3rd respondent has not stipulated the age of superannuation in their Articles of Association. Petitioner did continue in service up to the age of 58 years, but was released on 21.7.2006. He was not eligible to continue up to the age of 60. 4. In my view, the question as to whether the petitioner is eligible to continue till the age of 60 cannot really be considered in circumstances where the petitioner has not specifically challenged Ext.P4. I am of the further view that if no age of retirement, as such, has been prescribed, there is no vested right available to any W.P.(C).NO.32392/06 :: 3 :: person to continue up to the particular age. If the termination of service is illegal, the remedy of the aggrieved person is by way of damages. 5. In the result, I hold that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his services were not retained till the age of 60 years, remedy, if any, would only be to file a suit for damages. 6. Insofar as the petitioner's claim that his lien in the post of Managing Director in the SIDCO should be fixed by the Government, reference could be made to para 9 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: “The representation mentioned by the petitioner (Ext.P5) has been received by Government. It contains two requests i.e. (1) to give alternate appointment and (2) regularisation of service of him for the last 14 years for the purpose of service benefits, gratuity and leave surrender etc. The regularisation of service is under examination of Government and it has not been finalised. The matter is under process. But as far as the alternate posting, he has no vested right for posting as such, as he already completed 50 years, the age of retirement in State Public Sector Undertakings.” W.P.(C).NO.32392/06 :: 4 :: In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's application contained in Ext.P5 for the purpose of fixing his lien in the post of Managing Director of SIDCO, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of a copy of this judgment. If necessary, appropriate remarks from SIDCO may also be called for before passing orders on Ext.P5. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge