LI Network
Published on: 27 August 2023 at 18:30 IST
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition brought forth by a group of teachers employed in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala.
The petitioners had sought an increase in their retirement age from 55 years to 60 years, aligning it with the retirement age of teachers in other Medical Colleges.
Initiated in 2010, the appellants’ case challenged the Kerala High Court’s denial of their plea. During the pendency of their appeal in the Supreme Court, the Government of Kerala, in April 2012, issued an order elevating the superannuation age of teaching faculty in Homeopathic Colleges to 60 years.
In the same year, the Government extended the retirement age for instructors in Ayurvedic and Dental Colleges. Consequently, the appellants sought an alternative remedy: retroactive application of the 2012 Government Order to their case.
A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, in a judgment delivered on August 25, rejected both of the appellants’ requests. The bench emphasized that “the retirement age is solely a policy matter within the jurisdiction of the State Government.”
Justice Kohli’s authored judgment stated, “It is not within the court’s purview to stipulate a different retirement age from the one stipulated for government employees under the pertinent service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that, once the State has chosen to release a comparable Government Order extending the retirement age of staff teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges…”.
The bench cited the 2021 Supreme Court decision in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another V. B.D. Singhal and Others, which disapproved of the Allahabad High Court’s directive to extend the superannuation age of NOIDA employees.
The Supreme Court observed that this matter was purely a facet of State policy.
The bench also took into account the Government’s rationale for increasing the retirement age in other Medical Colleges – the shortage of experienced faculty.
Furthermore, the bench declined to apply the 2012 Government Order retroactively, which had raised the retirement age of Homeopathic Medical Doctors.
“The prerogative to make such a decision rests solely with the Executive. It is up to the State to decide whether the circumstances necessitate an extension of the superannuation age for a group of employees. One must presume that the State thoroughly evaluated the pros and cons before arriving at a decision to grant an age extension,” the Court stated.
The Court noted that when a cutoff date is established, some employees are inevitably excluded. Yet, this alone doesn’t render the decision invalid.
The Court dismissed the retroactive application plea based on the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.
“The appellants herein cannot assert an inherent right to retroactively apply the increased retirement age to them and assume that due to the later state-mandated age extension, they are entitled to all benefits, including financial ones, stemming from the G.O. dated April 9, 2012, grounded in legitimate expectation,” the Court asserted.
Referencing the NOIDA judgment, the Court stated that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked when the extension of superannuation age is “a public function” governed by statutory provisions and relevant service regulations.