Kerala High Court Takes Exception To State’s Rejection Of Proposal On Enhancing Retirement Age Of HC’s Meritorious Staff, Orders Fresh Decision

Taking exception to the State's rejection of a proposal on the enhancement of retirement age of high court staff from 56 to 58, the Kerala High Court on Thursday remitted the matter back to the state government for a fresh decision on the proposal of the Chief Justice for enhancement of the retirement age of the meritorious employees.

The Registrar General of the High Court on October 25, 2022 had forwarded the proposal of the Chief Justice for enhancement of the age of superannuation of the members of the High Court staff from 56 to 58 years. The proposal had been sent pursuant to a High level meeting between the Chief Justice and the Chief Minister of the State on September 24, 2022. The sub-committee consisting of three judges had suggested enhancement of retirement age, limiting to members with meritorious service and impeccable integrity for which a performance evaluation would have to be done at the age of 56 years.

Additional Chief Secretary of the Government however, in February informed the High Court of the State's inability to accept the proposal since the retirement age of the High Court staff had been fixed at par with that of the Government servants. The State said that since it had not taken any decision to enhance the retirement age of the government servants, the Government would thus not be able to consider the proposal of the Chief Justice favourably. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas, while taking the view that the request of the Chief Justice could only be treated as a proposal for favourable consideration for initiating suitable amendment to the law laid down with respect to the retirement age, observed:

"It is beyond our power to direct the Government to initiate steps for amendment of legislation related to the retirement age. However, at the same time, we also feel that the Government cannot outrightly reject the proposal, merely citing the age of retirement prevailing for government servants". 

The court further said that when the Chief Justice of the High Court sends the proposal, 'institutional comity' expects a high level of deliberations and consideration of the aspects related to the subject. 

"The different institutions of the State are to be coordinated in their efforts to achieve what is best in the larger interest of the Institution," the court added. 

The present batch of writ petitions were filed by employees who had entered into the service of the High Court prior to April 1, 2013. It was the case of the petitioners that the sole authority to decide the service conditions of High Court employees is the Chief Justice under Article 229 of the Constitution, and averred that the Government was thus bound to accept the proposal.

The court in this case perused Article 229 of the Constitution and noted that while the provision gives primacy to the Chief Justice in the matter of appointment of officers and servants of the High Courts, the service conditions of such staff are subject to the laws made by the State legislatures. 

The court observed that the sub-committee constituted by the Chief Justice had gone into the matter in detail and had only recommended the enhancement of the retirement age of meritorious employees and servants.

"The reason for such recommendation is that many officers who come up the ladder by way of promotion, before setting their foot to the post where they have been promoted, will have to retire from service without much contribution utilizing the experience they gained. This might cause ripples in the administration of the High Court," the court observed while, that the idea of suggesting enhancement to meritorious employees would be in the best interest of the administration of the institution. 

It was therefore of the view that the proposal of the Chief Justice could not be returned merely citing that it deflects parity in following the retirement age of government servants.

"We note that the Government had not considered the proposal in a proper perspective as agreed at the high level meeting. The sub-committee report and request to consider the enhancement of only meritorious employees have been sidetracked during the consideration. The logic and objectivity reflected in the proposal having been deflected during consideration, in the larger interest of the State, we remit the matter back for the Government to consider the proposal for enhancement of the retirement age of meritorious employees beyond the age of 56 years. We hope in the interest of all, the Government will consider the proposal at the earliest," the Court held while disposing of the writ petitions. 

Case Title: Ajith Kumar V.S. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 249 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment