Case Details Dr. Prakasan M.P. and Others vs State of Kerala and Another

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

25 August 2023

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 7580 of 2012

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Hima Kohli, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 293 : 2023 INSC 772

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 benefit.

Headnote

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 effect 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 difference 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 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 benefits including the monetary benefits flowing 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 affecting the studies or patient care – It was not merely to grant benefits 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

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, Ernakulam 2, 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 benefit of the Government Order4 dated 14th January, 20105, which increas

View Subscription Plans →