Retired employees cannot claim retrospective application of decision to enhance retirement age: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a plea filed by homoeopathic doctors seeking retrospective implementation of the Kerala government's decision to increase the retirement age of doctors in government homoeopathic colleges from 56 years to 60 years [Dr. Prakasan MP And Others vs. State Of Kerala And Another]..The bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal said such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive and whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by the State, 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,” said the Court, adding the appellants cannot claim a vested right for the retrospective implementation..The Court was hearing appeals against Kerala High Court’s dismissal of the petitions challenging exclusion of doctors and professors of government homeopathic colleges from the purview of State’s decision, dated January 14, 2010, to increase the retirement age of allopathic doctors to 60 years.While the appeal against the High Court decision was pending, the government in April 2012 extended the benefit of enhanced retirement age to homeopathic medical colleges too. However, since the appellants had retired by then, they claimed retrospective application of the 2012 decision.Though the appeal before the Supreme Court was not amended to raise such a prayer, the appellants filed an additional affidavit stating that State had refused to implement its decision retrospectively..The Court said that it is well-settled that these are all matters of policy and the State may deny the benefit for valid considerations like financial implications, administrative considerations and exigencies of service.It observed that had the matter stood as it was on the date when the High Court judgement came to be passed, the appellants could have advanced an argument that State must be expected to be with the guarantees extended under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.“But after the respondent No.1 – State Government issued three successive G.Os extending the age of retirement of the members of the Dental Faculties, Ayurvedic Faculties and Homoeopathic Faculties from 55 years to 60 years, the insistence on the part of the appellants that these G.Os ought to be given retrospective effect, even though there was no clause to that effect inserted therein, cannot be countenanced,” it added..The Court said 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. It also observed that though the appellants were first to raise the “battle cry”, there was no positive order granted in their favour 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 G.O. dated 09th April, 2012, when the State elected not to insert any such clause and evidently intended to apply it with prospective effect,” the Court stated..It held that the idea behind extending the retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was 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,” it said while dismissing the appeal..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.