WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:28849 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MARYSON.E.M. AGED 57 YEARS DISTRICT MANAGER (HIGHER GRADE), KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULE TRIBES LTD. DISTRICT OFFICE MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001 BY ADVS. TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM THOMAS GEORGE BIBIN B. THOMAS RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, S.C/S.T. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001 2 THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES LTD. CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 680020 3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES LTD. CHEMBUKAVU, TRICHUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680020 ADV.I.V PREMOD – SC ADV.MARY BEENA JOSEPH – SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:28849 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a District Level Officer working under the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Limited. As per the existing Service Rules, the retirement age of the employees in the said corporation is 58 years. The petitioner made a request for the enhancement of the retirement age and amending the relevant provisions of the Service Rules, which came to be rejected by the Corporation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has constituted an Expert Committee to examine the individual case of Government undertaking/corporations for enhancing the retirement age of their employees, and therefore, the respondent corporation ought to have referred the matter to the Expert Committee instead of deciding by itself and rejecting the petitioner’s request for WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:28849 enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. 3. The Government has constituted an Expert Committee vide G.O (MS) No.72/2023/FIN dated 19.04.2023, to examine the individual cases of the corporations/Government undertakings for enhancing the retirement age of their employees. However, the request has to be made by the concerned corporation/Government undertaking and not by the employees. In the present case, it appears that the respondent corporation is of the view that there is no requirement to enhance the retirement age of its employees from 58 years to 60 years, and therefore, the corporation has rejected the request of the petitioner for enhancing the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent corporation submits that as and when the corporation will feel requirement of enhancing the retirement age of its employees from 58 to 60 years, they will send a WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:28849 proposal in prescribed format to the Expert Committee. However, at present, the corporation is of the view that there is no requirement for enhancing the retirement age of its employees. 5. The petitioner, when entered into service, knew what would be his date of retirement from the employment. What should be the age of retirement of the employees is a policy decision which is reflected in the Service Rules. As per the existing Service Rules, the age of retirement of the employees working in the respondent corporation is 58 years, and the petitioner would retire as and when he attains the age of superannuation as per the existing Rules. Therefore, I do not find that the petitioner has a statutory or fundamental right to come before this Court under Article 226 of India seeking a relief of mandamus for a direction to the respondent to enhance the age of retirement from 58 years to 60 years. The policy decision has to be taken on consideration of various WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:28849 factors, and this Court cannot direct the Government or the respondents to take policy decision in a particular manner. In view thereof, I find no substance in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. Sd/- D. K. SINGH AP JUDGE WP(C) NO. 39270 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:28849 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39270/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(P)135/2022/FIN DATED 4-11-2022 Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO.A3/ESTT/167 DATED 25-9-2023 Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS) 88/2023/ID DATED 21-12-2023 Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO.A3/ESTT/167/24-25/KTM DATED 25-6-2024 Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO.A3/ESTT./167/24-25/KTM DATED 18-9-2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O(P) 1/2016/S.W.D. DATED 3-2-2016, Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)88/2023/ID DATED 2-12-2023 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)4/2024/NORKA DATED 12-12--2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 16/11/2024 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN ITS 377TH MEETING