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 Order[For short ‘G.O’] dated 14th January, 2010[G.O.(MS) No.14/2010/H&FWD], which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from 1st May, 2009. The prayer made was not granted. (Para 1)
There was a shortage of qualified and experienced medical faculties in several subjects in Government Medical Colleges in the State and that on account of the age of retirement of the faculty including medical doctors at 55 years, several departments were facing dearth of medical doctors which, was adversely affecting post graduate medical courses. Noting that at the National level, the retirement age of doctors in Medical Colleges was 65 years and retention of senior professors in service would help the State increase the number of post graduate seats as per the revised norms laid down by the Medical Council of India (Para 2)
Aggrieved by the exclusion of doctors/professors of Government Homeopathic Colleges from the purview of the captioned G.O. dated 14th January, 2010, the appellants filed a writ petition Writ Petition (C) No.10709 of 2010 in the High Court of Kerala praying inter alia for extension of the benefit of the said G.O. to Homeopathic Doctors working in Government Homeopathic Colleges. (Para 3)
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. As for the aspect of retrospectivity of such a decision, let us not forget, whatever may be the cut-off date fixed by the State Government, 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. The 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 9th April, 2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation. (Para 17)
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. 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)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 217 SC
[2023 INSC 772]
Dr. Prakasan M.P. And Others Vs. State Of Kerala And Another
Civil Appeal No. 7580 of 2012-Decided on 25-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-217-SC.pdf
