9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Kerala Service Rules regarding age of retirement. 2. Validity of petitioner's claim to opt for Madras Rules. 3. Impact of previous court judgments on similar cases. 4. Consideration of policy aspects regarding retirement age. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk in the Registration Department, was appointed in the State of Madras and later allotted to Kerala. The Kerala Service Rules set the retirement age at 55, though it was later increased to 58. The petitioner claims he could have continued till 58 under Madras Rules and argues for the right to opt for them. However, he did not exercise this option, remaining bound by Kerala Service Rules. The court confirms his retirement at 55 under Kerala rules. 2. The court examines previous judgments (Exts. P4 and P5) involving employees allotted to Kerala post-reorganization. These cases allowed opting for pre-existing service conditions beyond the specified period. However, the petitioner's situation differs as he was already bound by Kerala Service Rules and did not exercise the option. The court distinguishes employees entitled to continue till 58 under previous rules from those allotted to Kerala, like the petitioner. 3. The petitioner's argument for policy considerations in retaining employees beyond the retirement age is rejected. The court cites K. G. O. Front v. State of Kerala, emphasizing that decisions on retention are governmental policy matters, not for the court to dictate. The petitioner's claim to continue service is dismissed based on the existing legal framework and lack of valid exercise of option for Madras Rules. 4. In conclusion, the court dismisses the Original Petition, stating it cannot be entertained. The judgment upholds the application of Kerala Service Rules for the petitioner's retirement age, emphasizing the importance of following established rules and procedures in such matters, rather than judicial intervention in policy decisions regarding employee retention.
|
