LexDR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 293 : 2023 INSC 772 293 CASE DETAILS DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 7580 of 2012) AUGUST 25, 2023 [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Three Government orders (G.Os) issued enhancing the retirement age of doctors in medical category, however, were made prospective in nature. Appellants questioned the decision of the State of not incorporating a clause in the three G.O’s. issued, making their operation retrospective, which would have otherwise enured to their benefi t. Kerala Service Rules – r. 60(a) or 60(c) Part-I – The Government Order dated 14.01.2010 enhanced the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective eff ect from 01.05.2009 – Thereafter, three G.Os were issued including G.O. dated 09.04.2012 whereby, the retirement age of the teaching staff in Homeopathic Medical Colleges was also enhanced from 56 years to 60 years – However, all three G.Os were prospective in nature – Propriety of: Held: The singular diff erence was that unlike G.O. dated 14.01.2010, the subsequent three G.Os issued by the State were made prospective, thus denying any relief to the teaching faculties in the Dental, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic streams who had superannuated in the meantime – Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive – 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 294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant extension of age – Appellants herein cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the benefi ts including the monetary benefi ts fl owing from G.O. dated 09.04.2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation – 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 aff ecting the studies or patient care – It was not merely to grant benefi ts to a particular class. [Paras 15, 17 and 19] Doctrine – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Service Regulations: Held: 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. [Para 19] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another vs. B.D. Singhal and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 466; Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited. Vs. Union of India (2012) 11 SCC 1:[2012] 7 SCR 644 – relied on. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7580 of 2012 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2010 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No.1338 of 2010. Appearances: Sanand Ramakrishnan, Rajeev Mishra, Madan M. Bora, A. Raghunath, Advs. for the Appellants. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., C. K. Sasi, Adv. for the Respondents. 295 JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT HIMA KOHLI, J. 1. The appellants, who are members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the respondent No.1 - State of Kerala1, are aggrieved by the judgement dated 6th August, 2010, passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam2, concurring with the judgement dated 19th July, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge3. The relief prayed for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefi t of the Government Order4 dated 14th January, 20105, which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective eff ect from 1st May, 2009. The prayer made was not granted. THE FACTS : 2. To put the issue raised in the instant case in the correct perspective, we may fi rst refer to the relevant facts. The State issued a Government Order6 dated 14th January, 2010, recording inter-alia that there was a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.