STATE OF KERALA Vs. ADITHIKUTTY AMMA D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the connected writ appeals are filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring that the age of superannuation of the employees of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation shall be 58 years in terms of Resolution No.2525 dated 15-3-2006 passed by the then Board of Directors of the Corporation. Connected writ petitions which led to the judgments were filed by various employees of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, hereinafter called the "Corporation", who were on the verge of retirement at the age of 55 in terms of Regulation 13 of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Regulations, 1963, hereinafter called the "Regulations". The common respondent in all the writ appeals is the Corporation itself, which is supporting the State in the appeals filed by them. We have heard Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant, Senior Counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan and Adv. Sri Deepu Thankan appearing for the employees, who are party respondents in the writ appeals and standing counsel for the Corporation.

(2.) THE Corporation is established under Section 18 of the Warehousing Corporation's Act, 1962, hereinafter called the "Act". Regulations were framed by the Corporation with the previous sanction of the State Government under Section 42( 1) of the Act and the same was published on 18-6-1964. Under Clause 13 of the Regulations, the retirement age of employees was 55 years, which continued until 2006 when the Board of Directors of the Corporation passed the resolution on 15-3-2006 proposing to increase the retirement age of employees from 55 to 58. This resolution is produced as Ext.P-2 in the writ petition against which W. A. 1909/07 was filed. However, when the Corporation sought approval from the Government vide Managing Director's letter dated 29-3-2006, which is produced as Ext.P-3, the Government vide Ext.P-9 dated 17-7-2006 declined to approve the proposal. THE Government decision was challenged by the writ petitioners before this Court and during the pendency of the writ petitions, the Board of the Corporation passed another resolution on 29-3-2007 recalling the earlier resolution recommending increase in the retirement age of employees. THE learned Single Judge allowed all the writ petitions vacating the decision of the Government rejecting request for approval of increase in the retirement age and after quashing the later resolution passed by the Board of the Corporation. This Court declared that the retirement age of employees shall be 58 in terms of the original resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 15-3-2006. Appellant's case is that State has the authority to decide all the policy matters and regulation itself was framed with the previous sanction of the Government and so much so, without prior permission of the Government, Corporation cannot amend the regulations or increase the retirement age of the employees. On behalf of the Corporation, standing counsel supported the view taken by the State and according to him when Government declined permission to increase the retirement age, the Board, in consonance with such decision of the Government, recalled the earlier resolution, based on which, writ petitions were filed. Sr.counsel Sri O.V.Radhakrishnan and Adv. Sri Deepu Thankan appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, referred to Section 20(1) of the Act and contended that since the management of the Corporation is vested in the Board of Directors, their decision in regard to retirement age of employees, evidenced by Ext.P-2 resolution, shall bind the Government. Alternatively, they contended that, the Government, through a single sentence order, cannot turn down the recommendation of the Board with regard to the increase in the retirement age of the employees in an arbitrary manner. THE Additional Advocate General and Standing Counsel for the Corporation on the other hand contended that even under Section 20 (4) of the Act, policy decisions in regard to Corporation are taken by the State Government and the same are binding on the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

(3.) THE question to be considered is whether the Government is bound to give a reasoned order, if the recommendation of the Board is rejected. Here, again the respondents have no case that the decision is not one pertaining to the policy of the Corporation with regard to the age of retirement of the employees. We do not think the Government Order needs any separate reasoning since the same is on a policy matter. Even though Ext.P-9 issued by the Government cannot be challenged as arbitrary for want of reasoning, we feel it is a matter which requires detailed consideration of the Government because, the respondents have furnished data which shows the change in the policy decision of the Government itself by increasing and retaining the retirement age of the employees of large number of public sector corporations under the control of the State Government itself at 58 and in some case even 60 years. According to the respondents, out of 113 public sector companies in the State, in as many as 103, retirement age is 58. THEy also state that three corporations, K.S.R.T.C., K.S.E.B. and K.W.A. stand on a different footing because, retired employees are provided pension at par with the Government service, whereas in the case of Government companies, including the State Warehousing Corporation, pension payable is a small amount. It is also pointed out that in the Central Warehousing Corporation and in very many State Warehousing Corporations discharging same functions, the retirement age of the employees is 58 and in some cases even 60 years. THE respondents have relied on Government Orders, GO. MS. No.56/10/ID dt. 15-3-2010 and GO. MS. No. 84/10/TSM dt. 16-3-2010 where under the age of retirement of the employees of the Food Craft Institute has been increased from 55 to 58. THErefore, according to the respondents, there is a change in the policy of the Government and so much so, there is every case for considering the increase in the age of retirement of employees of State Warehousing Corporation. What is to be noted from March, 2006 onwards is that employees of the State Warehousing Corporation were also allowed to continue beyond 55 years though under orders of Court and even as of now they are continuing. In other words, the benefit of extended three years of service has been obtained by large number of employees during the course of last four years. Obviously, if retirement age is now restored to 55 based on our judgment, probably there will be extensive retirements leading to problems for management because, recruitment for replacements takes its own time. We, therefore, feel it is a fit case for the Government to reconsider the matter, particularly in view of the change in the policy of the Government in the decision shown in the case of some other corporations referred above. We, therefore, dispose of the Writ Appeals by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the Writ Petitions directing the Government to reconsider the issue considering the original resolution passed by the Board of Directors on 15-3-2006 which will be treated as a recommendation waiting for decision of the Government. THE Corporation will permit the employees to continue until the Government decides the matter and communicates their decision. THE Government is directed to take a decision within two months from receipt of this judgment.