Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 19778 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:
1 SREEKUMARAN NAIR A. AGED 61 YEARS S/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SARADA NIVAS, BHASKARA NAGAR, VENPAKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695123. 2 GANGADHARAN. M., AGED 61, S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, KAVUVILAKAM VEEDU, MARYAPURAM P.O., AMARAVILA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695122. 3 VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR.K., AGED 61, S/O KESAVAN NAIR, KESAVA MANDIRAM, PANANGODU, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695523. 4 SOBHANAKUMAR, AGED 61, S/O NANUKUTTAN NAIR, LALITHA SADANAM, KALLIYOOR, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, PIN : 695041. 5 ASOKAKUMAR.R., AGED 61, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, RAHUL BHAVAN, ANCHUVANNI, KANNARAVILA, NELLIMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN : 695524. BY ADVS. K.RAJESH KANNAN P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI
RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION (KEXCON), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. & connected cases 2 3 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY (CDIT) REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHITHRANJALI HILLS, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN : 695027. BY ADVS. R.S.KALKURA S.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).12483/2023, 21587/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & connected cases 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 12483 OF 2023 PETITIONER: VELAPPAN NAIR AGED 60 YEARS S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, LEELA VILASOM, NEAR VILAPPILSALA DEVI TEMPLE, VILAPPILSALA (P.O.) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695573 BY ADVS. K.RAJESH KANNAN P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION (KEXCON), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY (CDIT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHITHRANJALI HILLS, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695027 BY ADV S.RAMESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19778/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & connected cases 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 21587 OF 2022 PETITIONER: VIKRAMAN NAIR. B AGED 60 YEARS SON OF BHASKARA PILLAI, DEVATHEERTHAM, NEERAZHI, VELLANAD P.O, NEDUMANAGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - BY ADVS. K.RAJESH KANNAN P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001 2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMEN DEVELOPMENT REHABILITATION CORPORATION - KEXCON REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD ( PO ), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 3 THE SENIOR MANAGER GOVERNMENT GUEST HOUSE, THYCAUD TRIVANDRUM, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695014 BY ADV R.S.KALKURA SRI.APPU P.S GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19778/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & connected cases 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27901 OF 2022 PETITIONER: CHANDRAN C AGED 60 YEARS S/O CHALLAPPAN NADAR, THEKKEMADATHI KUZHI VEEDU, SATHYAN NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695019. BY ADVS. K.RAJESH KANNAN P.C.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SAINIK WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 2 KERALA STATE EX-SERVICEMAN DEVELOPMENT & REHABILITATION CORPORATION (KEXCON), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OPP. AMRITHA HOTEL, THYCAUD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. KWA (CONTROL UNIT BUILDING), PH DIVISION SOUTH OBSERVATORY HILLS, JALABHAVAN VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. BY ADVS. R.S.KALKURA GEORGIE JOHNY SRI.APPU P.S THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).19778/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: & connected cases 6
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.19778/2022, 12483/2023, 21587/2022 & Dated this the 20th day of June, 2023 These writ petitions relate to the upper age limit for Ex- Servicemen to work as a security guards under the 2 nd respondent Corporation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners are Ex-Servicemen registered under the 2 nd respondent Corporation which is a only Government owned Corporation constituted for the purpose of rehabilitation of Ex-Servicemen. It is submitted that the upper age limit of security guards deployed by the 2nd respondent Corporation was fixed as 62 years by a Board resolution dated 19/5/2015. The Ex-Servicemen were therefore being permitted to work as security guards till they attain the age of 62 years. While so, it is submitted that the KSEB, to which security guards were being deployed by the Corporation had taken a stand that only persons below the age of 60 years could be deployed to the said Government company. It is submitted that the said issue was taken up before this Court by individual Ex- & connected cases 7 Serviceman by filing writ petitions. The matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1035/2021 and connected cases. Taking note of the decision taken by the Kerala State Ex- Serviceman Development & Rehabilitation Corporation (KEXCON) to employ Ex-Servicemen till they attain the age of 62 years as security guards and the decision of the KSEBL that only persons below the age of 60 could be employed as security guards in the KSEBL, the Division Bench directed the consideration of the matter by the Government. It was stated that the KEXCON as well as the KSEBL are amenable to the policy directions to be issued by the Government and that therefore the question whether the maximum age should be 60, 62 or 65 is to be decided by the Government.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
upper age of 65 provided under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 was specifically adverted to by the Division Bench and was directed to be considered by the Government while taking up such issues. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a decision was taken by the Government in its power department with regard to the issue of upper age limit of & connected cases 8 security guards deployed to the KSEBL and it was decided that the upper age limit should be fixed as 60. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits the Government Order dated 1/8/2022 passed by the Government specifically considered the issue of fixing of upper age of security guards deployed to the KSEBL in the light of the special requirements of the KSEBL and that it did not amount to any general decision. It is contended that the KEXCON which had fixed the age of 62 as the upper age limit by its resolution in 2015 could depart from the said upper age limit only in the case of persons deployed to the KSEBL and not otherwise.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by
the 2nd respondent. It is contended therein that the 2 nd respondent has been established as a fully owned State Government company for the rehabilitation and welfare of Ex-Servicemen or widows and their dependents and the true copy of the Memorandum of Association is produced as R2(a). It is submitted that the Corporation is duty bound to rehabilitate as many Ex-Servicemen as possible and that there are 40,000 Ex-Servicemen registered with the 2nd respondent for deployment on daily wages as part of their rehabilitation. Every year about 5,000 Ex-Servicemen are & connected cases 9 being added to the large number of the existing Ex-Servicemen population and that the Corporation has a duty to take policy decisions taking note of the number of Ex-Servicemen and the general benefits that would accrue to the large number of persons who are awaiting rehabilitation. It is submitted that para 16 of the Articles of Association provides power in the Board of Directors to take necessary steps to carry out all or any of the objects of the Corporation. It is submitted that the Corporation had specifically considered the issue of fixing of upper age limit of Ex-Servicemen deployed as security guards. It is stated that taking into consideration the large number of registered Ex-Servicemen awaiting rehabilitation and also taking into consideration the requirement of it’s clients, the age criteria was being revised from time to time. Accordingly, on 28/4/2022 in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent, a resolution was passed after due deliberations, fixing the upper age limit of empanelled Ex-Servicemen as security staff deployed by the 2 nd respondent to various units as 60 years. It is therefore contended that the decision to fix the age limit as 60 being a policy decision taken by the competent authority of the Corporation, the same cannot be & connected cases 10 challenged by the petitioners in these proceedings.
5. An additional counter affidavit has also been placed on
record, producing the Government order dated 1/8/2022 where by the Government had also directed the fixing of upper age limit of security guards deployed by the KEXCON to the KSEBL as 60 years.
6. The learned Government Pleader would also contend that
the question with regard to deployment of Ex-Servicemen as security guards to the KSEBL had been specifically considered by the Government and it was felt that the upper age limit of 60 years is required to be maintained, in view of the fact that the KSEBL required robust and young persons as security guards.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the CDIT submits that the question of age limit is an issue which has to be considered by the KEXCON and that the CDIT has no say in the matter with regard to the upper age limit.
8. Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that
Section 10 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 only provides the eligibility to be a private security guards. Section 10(1)(b) provides that a private security agency shall not employee or engage any person as a private security guard unless he has & connected cases 11 completed 18 years of age but has not attained the age of 65 years. It is therefore clear that there was no age of retirement as such provided by the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act,
2005. As far as the KEXCON is concerned, it is admittedly not a
private security agency which is governed by the provisions of the 2005 Act. The upper age limit of persons to be engaged as security guards is a matter which has to be decided by the Board of Directors of the Corporation as provided in its Articles of Association. If that be so, the decision taken by the Corporation which is produced as Ext.R2(c) to limit the upper age limit of security guards as 60 years can only be seen as a policy decision which apparently is informed by the reasons as stated in the counter affidavit.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would thereupon
submit that a reading of Ext.R2(c) would show that persons who have crossed the age of 60 years are also being engaged in the case of other units excluding the KSEBL and that atleast in the case of the writ petitioners herein, their claim to continue till the attain the age of 62 may be considered. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed & connected cases 12 of with a direction that in case the petitioners in these writ petitions approach the KEXCON with a request for permission to be engaged to till they attain the age of 62 years, the said request shall be considered by the KEXCON in accordance with law. It is made clear that, I have not interfered with the policy decision taken by the KEXCON in Ext.R2(c) and that the directions are being issued only due to the fact that the petitioners have continued beyond the age of 60 and are still being deployed in the light of the interim orders as passed by this Court. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the petitioners in these writ petitions will be permitted to continue in service. Sd/- ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ska & connected cases 13 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19778/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN W.A. NO.1035/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) TRUE COPY MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit R2(b) TRUE COPY OF G.O. (M.S) 179/2005/GAD DATED Exhibit R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 2ND RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION REGARDING UPPER AGE LIMIT Exhibit R2 (e) True copy of the G.O (Rt) No. 123/2022/ Power dated 1.8.2022 Exhibit R2 (d) True copy of the common judgment dated 12.10.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1035 of 2021, 1000 of 2021 and 1038 of 2021 & connected cases 14 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12483/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.5.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN W.A. NO.1035/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.8.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO: 19778/2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.6.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO.19778/2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. & connected cases 15 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21587/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2021 IN W.A. NO.1035/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2 ( a ) True copy Memorandum of Association of the 2nd respondent PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.06.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO: 19778/2022 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2 ( b ) True copy of G.O. (Ms) 179/2005/GAD dated 4.6.2005 Exhibit R2 ( c ) True copy of the extract of minutes of the
board meeting dated 28.04.2022 of the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent with regard to the decision regarding upper age limit
Exhibit R2 (d) True copy of the common judgment dated 12.10.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1035 of 2021, 1000 of 2021 and 1038 of 2021 Exhibit R2 (e) True copy of the G.O (Rt) No. 123/2022/ Power dated 1.8.2022 & connected cases 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27901/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.07.2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. NO: 23775/2022. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2 ( c ) True copy of the minutes of the meeting dated
28.04.2022 of the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent with regard to the decision regarding upper age limit
Exhibit R2 ( d ) True copy of the bilateral agreement executed by the petitioner with the 2nd respondent dated 06.12.2019 Exhibit R2 ( a ) True copy Memorandum of Association of the 2nd respondent Exhibit R2 ( b ) True copy of G.O. (Ms) 179/2005/GAD dated 4.6.2005 Exhibit R2 ( e ) True copy of the common judgment dated 12.10.2021 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1035 of 2021, 1000 of 2021 and 1038 of 2021 Exhibit R2 ( f ) True copy of the G.O (Rt) No. 123/2022/ Power dated 1.8.2022 issued by the 1st respondent