THE KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS ASSOCIATION versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 1139 · Decided: 17-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
THE KERALA ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
ASSOCIATION
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2010)
MAY 17, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Service Law – Appellant-association claimed for grant of
parity to Assistant Public Prosecutors, in the matter of retirement
age, with Public Prosecutors in the State – Claim rejected by the
High Court – Appellant contended that maximum age for
appointment of public prosecutors, for term of 3 years, is 60 years;
whereas the age of retirement of Assistant Public Prosecutors
appointed prior to 31st March, 2013 is 56 years – As both act as
officers of the Court, Assistant Public Prosecutors are also entitled
to be treated at par with Public Prosecutors and other officers whose
age of superannuation is specified at 60 years – On appeal, held:
No infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court – The
method of appointment and conditions of service of Assistant Public
Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are qualitatively different –
Assistant Public Prosecutors are appointed through a competitive
selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission and entitled to all service benefits as are enjoyed by
the other government employees without any exception – Public
Prosecutors, however, are appointed from a panel of advocates
furnished by the Advocate General for a period of 3 years and they
are not considered as government employees and do not derive any
service benefits as in the case of government employees – The fact
that the nature of duties and functions of Assistant Public
Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are similar, per se, cannot be
the basis to claim parity with Public Prosecutors in respect of age
of superannuation – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.24
and 25 – Kerala Service Rules – r.60(b) to (d) – Kerala Government
Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of service) and Conduct
of Cases Rules, 1978.
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 1139
1139
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Service Law – Appellant-association contended that there are
Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or after 1st April, 2013
whose age of superannuation is 60 years; whereas there are Assistant
Public Prosecutors appointed prior to 31st March, 2013 whose age
of superannuation is 56 years – Appellant sought that the age of
superannuation  of Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed prior to
31st March, 2013 to be brought at par to 60 years – Further,
alternately it was pleaded that Assistant Public Prosecutors were
willing to forego the pension for the extra period of service which
will accrue from the age of 56 years till 60 years – Held: Conditions
of service of Assistant Public Prosecutors who were appointed on
or before 31st March, 2013 and who joined on and after 1st April,
2013 are different – In that, those appointed on or before 31st March,
2013 are governed by the statutory pension scheme under the
Service Rules as in the case of other government employees; and
those appointed on or after 1st April, 2013 are governed by the new
Contributory Pension Scheme made applicable to all the government
employees and not limited to Assistant Public Prosecutors – If the
alternate plea of appellant to forego pension is accepted, it will
create anomaly and also discrimination and hardship to the rest of
the government employees appointed prior to 31st March, 2013, as
they would retire at the age of 56 years – Further, it is a policy
matter – It is open to the appellant to make a representation to the
concerned State authority who will be free to take an appropriate
decision as may be advised and permissible in law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:  1. There is no infirmity in the conclusion arrived
at by the High Court in rejecting the claim of the appellant to
accord parity in respect of age of superannuation at 60 years to
the Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31st
March, 2013.  The High Court rightly opined that the method of
appointment and conditions of service of Assistant Public
Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are qualitatively different.
Assistant Public Prosecutors are appointed through a competitive
selection process conducted by the Kerala Public Service
Commission as per the rules in vogue. After appointment,
Assistant Public Prosecutors are entitled to all service benefits
as are enjoyed by the other government employees without any
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.