Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court has said nobody can claim a vested right to seek enhancement of retirement age and apply it retrospectively on the principle of legitimate expectation.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal said such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive. 

"These are all matters of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the benefit of extension of age to a particular class of government employees while denying the said benefit to others for valid considerations that may include financial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies of service, etc," the bench said.

The court said it is for the State to take a call as to whether the circumstances demand that a decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of employees or not. It must be assumed that the State would have weighed all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant extension of age, the bench added.

With regard to applying such an extension retrospectively, the bench said, "Let us not forget, whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by the State Government, some employees would always be left out in the cold. But that alone would not make the decision bad; nor would it be a ground for the Court to tread into matters of policy that are best left for the State Government to decide."

The apex court dismissed a plea filed by Dr Prakasan M P and others against the Kerala High Court's division bench order of August 6, 2010 concurring with a view of single judge bench of July 19, 2010.

The HC had rejected the plea by appellants, members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order of January 14, 2010, which increased the retirement age of doctors in the medical category under the medical education service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from May 1, 2009.

During the pendency of the matter, the court was informed the state government took a decision to enhance the retirement age of doctors and teaching staff in Dental, Ayurveda and Homoeopathic colleges too, so as  as to avoid problems that may be faced by the research students due to retirement of experienced faculty working as guides.

The appellants thus sought a direction for applying the change in rules retroactively on the ground of legitimate expectation.

The bench, however, said, "The idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in affecting the studies or patient care. It was not merely to grant benefits to a particular class. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters that are strictly governed by the service regulations. This is an exercise that is undertaken by the State in discharge of its public duties and should not brook undue interference by the Court."

The court also pointed out it is well-settled that the age of retirement is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the state government. It is not for the courts to prescribe a different age of retirement from the one applicable to government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision, it should be applied retrospectively.

It pointed out in the instant case, the state government issued three successive GOs extending the age of retirement of the members of the Dental, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Faculties from 55 years to 60 years, the insistence on the part of the appellants that these orders ought to be given retrospective effect, even though there was no clause to that effect, cannot be countenanced. 

If the state government had not raised the retirement age, perhaps the appellants could have advanced an argument that the action of the State must be expected to be fair and reasonable and in line with the guarantees 
extended under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that there was no rationale in treating them differently when Doctors/Professors from all streams teaching in medical colleges in the State formed a homogenous class and are governed by the same set of Service Rules and Regulations, the bench said.

The court also pointed out it is a matter of record that there was no positive order granted in favour of appellants throughout. Even in the present proceedings, no interim order was passed in favour of the appellants who have superannuated in the meantime. The clock cannot be put back for them by reading retrospectivity in the GO of April 9, 2012, when the State elected not to insert any such clause and evidently intended to apply it with prospective effect.

Case Title: DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

Click here to read judgment