Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

A.Sathyan vs State of Kerala

A.Sathyan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 04, 2025
~6 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1283093

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/18190/2024
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.Sathyan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....w.p.(c) no.3441/2023. paragraph 7 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-“7. a perusal of ext.p8 would reveal that the government has ordered the maximum age up to a person would be employed on a contract basis under hospital development society, etc., to be 65. so it does not fix the retirement age at 65. however, the concerned employer is given the discretion to allow persons employed on a contract basis to work till the age of 65 years. so, the petitioners cannot claim that they may be permitted to be engaged till the age of 65 years.”with the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- d. k. singh judge svn appendix of wp(c) 18190/2024 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 true copy of the appointment order no. b/481/12/avch dated 20.04.2012. issued by the 4th respondentexhibit p2 true copy of go (rt) no. 2466/2018/h&fwd dated 02-08-2018 exhibit p3 true copy of letter dated 03-01-2022 issued by the 4th respondent exhibit p4 . true copy of go (p) no. 535/90/fin dated 25-10-1990 exhibit p5 representation submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent dated 6.2.2024 exhibit p6 true copy of the judgment in wp (c) no. exhibit p7 true copy of the go (rt) no. 162/2024/ayush dated 08-05-2024 english translation of exhibit p3 english translation of exhibit p1 respondent exhibitsexhibit r2(a) true copy of declaration dated 25-04-2012 submitted by the petitioner before the secretary, hospital development committee exhibit r2(b) true copy of order no.b/35/2023/avch dated ayurveda college

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 18190 OF 2024 PETITIONER: A. SATHYAN AGED 56 YEARS, S/O C. AYYAPPAN, ANANTHABHAVAN, CHIRAYILKONAM, VETTINAD, VATTAPARA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695028. BY ADVS. T.C.KRISHNA ASHA S.V GOKUL KRISHNA GOPI KRISHNA R. RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR OF HOMEOPATHY [CORRECTED], DIRECTORATE OF HOMEOPATHY, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 [DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, SANTHI NAGAR, PULUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 696 001. (2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AND REPLACED AS PER

ORDER DATED 24.07.2024 IN I.A.1/2024 IN

WP(C)18190/2024]. 3 THE CHAIRMAN/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002. BY ADV. BIMALK. NATH-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

D. K. SINGH, J.

-------------------------- ------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is working as security staff under the 3rd

respondent Hospital Development Society/Hospital Management Committee at the Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on a contract basis under National Health Mission, a program of the Central Government for providing health services to the public in general. The petitioner got retired on 31.03.2024 on attaining the age of 56 years.

2. The petitioner has approached this court for the following prayers:-

i. To issue writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P7, as it is arbitrary and issued without application of mind and without considering Exhibits P2-P4 as directed in Exhibit P6 Judgement. ii. To declare that the daily wage employees under the HDS of Hospitals under the 2nd respondent, including the Petitioner herein, are eligible and entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation from 56 to 65, as those granted as per Exhibit P2 to their counterparts in the Health & Family Welfare Department.

iii. To declare that the Petitioner is eligible to continue to the age of 65 years or in the alternative upto the age of 60 years in accordance with Rule 60(b) of Part III KSR. iv. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ,

order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and

dispose of Exhibit P5 within a time frame. v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

Government order dated 02.08.2018, in which it has been stated that the retirement age with regard to the persons employed on a contract basis under the Hospital Development Society, Hospital Development Committee / Hospital Management Committee, etc under the project funded by Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana has not been fixed. Therefore, the Government ordered that the maximum age upto which the person could be employed on contract basis under the National Health Mission, a program funded by the Central Government under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana will be 65 years.

4. Even if one considers the language employed in the said

Government order, it gives discretion to the hospital authorities concerned to keep the person engaged on a contract basis under the National Health Mission up to 65 years of age. The said Government

order does not confer any indefeasible right on the person employed

on a contract basis under the National Health Mission to continue till he/she attains the age of 65 years. It is left to the discretion of hospital authority to keep the person engaged on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years.

5. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right under the contract or as per the Government

order dated 02.08.2018 to remain in employment on a contract basis

till he attains the age of 65 years.

6. However, the petitioner may be given employment after he has

attained the age of 56 years for a further period on a contract basis, depending on the availability of the work and his conduct and performance. Such a decision shall be decided only by the hospital authority, and this Court cannot issue a mandamus for engaging the petitioner on a contract basis in the National Health Mission after he attained the age of 56 years and allow him to continue till he attains the age of 65 years.

7. A similar view has been taken by the Single Bench of this court in the judgment dated 13.02.2024 W.P.(C) No.3441/2023. Paragraph 7 of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-

“7. A perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that the Government has ordered the maximum age up to a person would be employed on a contract basis under Hospital Development Society, etc., to be 65. So it does not fix the retirement age at 65. However, the concerned employer is given the discretion to allow persons employed on a contract basis to work till the age of 65 years. So, the petitioners cannot claim that they may be permitted to be engaged till the age of 65 years.”

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- D. K. SINGH JUDGE Svn APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18190/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. B/481/12/AVCH DATED 20.04.2012. ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO. 2466/2018/H&FWD DATED 02-08-2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03-01-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 . TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO. 535/90/FIN DATED 25-10-1990 EXHIBIT P5 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2024 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 162/2024/AYUSH DATED 08-05-2024 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF DECLARATION DATED 25-04-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B/35/2023/AVCH DATED AYURVEDA COLLEGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial