SIRAJUDEEN, S/O. ABOOBACKER AND OTHERS Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (PU) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners say that they are being engaged by the second respondent - Kerala State Horticultural Products Development Corporation Ltd. on a contract basis with a consolidated pay. According to them, they were earlier engaged as regular employees but that when they attained the age of 58 years, which is the age of superannuation as far as the Corporation is concerned, they were engaged on contract basis through Ext.P8 order dated 28.08.2017.

(2.) The petitioners allege that while they were so working, the Corporation issued Ext.P9 order, terminating their contract without assigning any reason. The petitioners have, therefore, assailed Ext.P9 order on the ground that it has been issued illegally. Additionally, they have assailed Ext.P8 order to a limited extent by asserting that they should have been allowed to continue on regular service up to 60 years and not on contract basis as has been done therein. The basis of this assertion appears to be that the Corporation had taken a decision in the year 2014 to enhance the superannuation age from 58 to 60 and have forwarded such resolution, along with the recommendation, to the Government, as is evidenced by Exts.P6 and P7 proceedings. The petitioners thus contend that they have the right to continue at least until such time as the Government takes a final decision on the resolution passed by the Corporation to enhance the retirement age.

(3.) I have heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader.