LAWS(KER)-2020-6-83

MURALEEDHARAN NAIR V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 10, 2020
Muraleedharan Nair V Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these 3 Writ Petitions, claim that they are entitled to continue in service under the Kerala Health Research and Welfare Society (KHRWS) till 65 years. All of them have crossed the age of 60 years. The respondent Society has filed counter affidavits refuting their claim and seeking to vacate the interim orders. Therefore, I heard M/s Swathi kumar and M.Sreekumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. M.Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the KHRWS and Sri. Sunilkumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) Petitioner in this Writ Petition is an Ex-service man. It is stated that he has been continuing as a Security Guard based on Ext P1 order of appointment issued on 20.08.2006, on contract basis, on renewal from time to time. It is stated that his appointment was on recommendation by the Sainik Board and the Employment Exchange. He claimed that as per Ext.P2 order issued by the Government of India the retirement age of Security personnel is fixed as 65 years. It is further claimed that as per Ext.P3 order issued by the Government of Kerala on 02.08.2018, the retirement age of persons employed on contract basis in the Hospital Development Society is fixed as 65 years and therefore the security personnel like the petitioner under the 2nd respondent Society is also entitled to continue in service upto 65 years. The Writ Petition was filed alleging that the KHRWS was taking steps to relieve him on attaining the age of 60 years contrary to the orders Exts.P2 and P3. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration on 9.3.2020, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that one Sri Sreedharan Nair, who was working as a Supervisor under the Society, is allowed to continue even beyond the age of 63 years. Taking note of the same, this Court directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in service for a further period of two weeks therefrom.

(3.) Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the 2 nd respondent, is an autonomous institution fully owned and controlled by the Government of Kerala, registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act and that its Governing Body is its ultimate authority. It is stated that the 129th governing body of the 2nd respondent which met on 13.12.2017 decided to limit the services of temporary employees including those engaged on daily wages, on contract basis, etc. under the 2 nd respondent Society at 60 years. It is stated that the implementation of the decision is being done stage by stage, considering the exigencies of service in respect of particular posts, special qualification required, etc. It is stated that progress of implementation of the decision was reported by the then Managing Director before the general body in its 130 th meeting held on 24.01.2019. The 2nd respondent has given a list of 40 persons in various posts whose services were terminated on attaining the age of 60 years during the period from 14.02.2018 to 25.05.2020. This includes the name of Sreedharan Nair also with date of termination of service on 25.05.2020. It is further stated in para.9 as follows: