1. These writ petitions are filed by employees under the Institute of Human Resource Development. The petitioners seek to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service and allow them to continue in service till they attain the age of 60 years.

2. The parties and exhibits in these writ petitions are referred to as they have been described/marked in W.P.(C) No.34527/2025, for convenience.

3. The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Lecturer / Workshop Assistant / Workshop Instructor / Tradesman, etc. in the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD). The IHRD is a Society registered under the Registration of Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1965. The control, administration and management of the Society are vested in the governing body. The governing body consists of 23 members, all of whom are government officials. IHRD is not a pensionable establishment. The age of retirement of employees in IHRD is 58 years.

4. The LBS Institute of Science and Technology is another institute established by the Government in similar lines. The age of retirement of the employees of the said LBS Institute was 58 years. The retirement age was enhanced by the Government to 60 years as per Ext.P17 GO dated 27.03.2025. The C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute for the Mentally Challenged is another aided institute of the Government of Kerala. The governing council of the said institute recommended that age of retirement of its employees be enhanced from 56 to 58.

5. The governing body of IHRD also, as per its decision taken on 20.01.2024, recommended the Government to enhance the age of superannuation of all its employees to 60. A Cabinet meeting of the Government of Kerala held on 28.05.2025 considered the issue of enhancement of retirement age in C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute for the Mentally Challenged and the IHRD. The Government in the said meeting decided to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of both the institutes. In respect of C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute, the Government immediately issued GO dated 30.05.2025 enhancing the age of retirement, as per Ext.P18. The decision was not immediately implemented in IHRD.

6. An employee of IHRD, one Ravindran Pillai, filed W.P.(C) No.18609/2025 seeking to stall the enhancement of age of retirement in IHRD. The writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P19 judgment. The said Ravindran Pillai filed W.A. No.1204/2025 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal.

7. A by-election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Nilambur Legislative Constituency was underway during the time. One Sri. Ravi Mainagappally filed a complaint and consequently, the cabinet decision to enhance the age of retirement in IHRD was not implemented immediately. The Government issued Ext.P25 order enhancing the age of retirement of the employees of IHRD, only on 13.08.2025. By the said date, the petitioners were made to retire on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years, on 31.05.2025.

8. The petitioners state that as the Government had taken a Cabinet decision on 28.05.2025, the benefit of the said decision should not have been denied to the petitioners on extraneous considerations. The Cabinet had decided to enhance the age of retirement of employees of the two establishments on 28.05.2025. The decision was implemented in respect of the other establishments on 30.05.2025. Consequent to the delay on issuing formal orders in respect of IHRD, the petitioners were made to retire on 31.05.2025.

9. The petitioners state that they have been subjected to grave injustice and gross discrimination. They have been denied the benefit of a concrete policy decision taken by the Government of Kerala on extraneous considerations and for no fault of the petitioners. While employees of other Government institutes enjoy the benefit of enhanced age of retirement, the petitioners alone are condemned to retire in advance.

10. The Senior Government Pleader entered appearance and opposed the writ petitions. The Senior Government Pleader argued that whether the age of superannuation should be increased, and if so, the date from which it should be effected, is purely a policy matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. The Government Pleader submitted that ultimately, in drawing every cut off, some employees would stand on one side of the line while the others would be positioned otherwise. This element of hardship cannot be a ground for the courts to hold that the decision was arbitrary.

11. 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, 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 to the State Government to decide. The petitioners cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement to them retrospectively, urged the Government Pleader.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the Government. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the IHRD.

13. Before going into the legal contentions advanced by either side, it is necessary that the sequence of events leading to the enhancement of age of retirement approved by the Government and implemented by the IHRD, are looked into. The governing body of IHRD, on the basis of the decision taken as per its letter No.IHRD/1605/2023-EB3 dated 20.01.2024 recommended the Government of Kerala to enhance the age of superannuation of all its employees to 60. A Cabinet meeting of the Kerala Government convened on 28.05.2025 decided to enhance the age of retirement of the employees of the C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute. Ext.P22 is the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 28.05.2025. Ext.P22 would show that the proposal for enhancement of age of retirement was approved.

14. Ext.P30 is the note for circulation of the proposal of the Director, IHRD for the enhancement of retirement age of IHRD employees. Note # 39 would show that the office of the Chief Secretary has called for the particulars of employees of the IHRD who are to retire on 31.05.2025. It obviously would indicate that the policy proposal was to implement whatever be the decision, with effect from 31.05.2025. Note # 43 would show that the Cabinet Committee meeting held on 28.05.2025 had decided to enhance the age of retirement of IHRD employees from 58 to 60. Note # 48 would show that IHRD Employees Congress had approached the Election Commission alleging that voters of Nilambur Legislative Assembly are employees in IHRD. Apparently, it is on the basis of the complaint pending before the Election Commission that the decision of the State Cabinet was not immediately implemented.

15. Ext.P30 would further indicate that the IHRD was of the firm opinion that the retirement age of 31 faculty members and 15 non-faculty members should be enhanced in order to maintain the quality of education under the IHRD. Note # 82 of Ext.P30 makes it clear that the Minister for Higher Education had informed the Chief Minister that the order implementing enhancement of retirement age of IHRD employees can be given retrospective effect from 28.05.2025.

16. However, when the Government issued Ext.P25 order on 13.08.2025 enhancing the age of retirement, the order was given only with prospective effect. The question is, in the circumstances of the case, grant of prospective effect and non-implementation of the Government decision with effect from 30.05.2025 is justified or not.

17. While considering that factor, one must keep in mind that the question is not a policy matter as the Government of Kerala has already taken a policy decision in the matter of retirement age of IHRD employees along with similar issue relating to C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute. The Government had already taken the policy decision on 28.05.2025 in favour of enhancement of age of retirement. The question is about the justifiability of delaying the implementation of the decision in a discriminatory manner.

18. The Government had considered the case of the IHRD along with the case of C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute. In the same Cabinet meeting, it was decided to enhance the age of retirement of employees in respect of both the institutions. Executive Order enhancing the age of retirement of C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute was issued on 30.05.2025. Issuance of similar order in respect of IHRD was arbitrarily deferred perhaps due to the pending writ petition / writ appeal. It is to be noted that the writ petition as well as writ appeal challenging the enhancement of age of retirement were dismissed by this Court and there was no interim order granted by this Court at any point of time.

19. Yet another reason indicated is that a byelection was scheduled in Nilambur Kerala Legislative Assembly Constituency during this time and in deference to the Model Code of Conduct, the decision with regard to IHRD employees was delayed.

20. In this regard, it is to be noted that Nilambur Assembly Constituency is in Malappuram District and C.H. Mohammed Koya Memorial State Institute is situated in Thiruvananthapuram District. The Headquarters of IHRD is situated in Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioners, there are no employees hailing from Nilambur Assembly Constituency who will be benefitted by the enhancement of retirement age in IHRD. If that be so, there is no justification for delaying the implementation of the decision of the Government citing by-election in a far away constituency.

21. Assuming that the Model Code of Conduct relating to the by-election ought to have been followed, even then the decision of the Government to implement the Cabinet decision prospectively with effect from the date of issuance of Ext.P25 order cannot be justified. This is so because the Cabinet meeting had taken the decision to enhance the age of retirement on 28.05.2025 in respect of two institutions. While the benefit of the decision was given with respect to one institute from 30.05.2025, it could not have been delayed in respect of IHRD till 13.08.2025. Such differential treatment given to the two institutions has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Ext.P25 order dated 13.08.2025 is illegal and arbitrary to the extent it excludes the IHRD employees, who were to retire between 30.05.2025 and 13.08.2025, from the benefit of the decision taken by the Government.

The writ petitions are therefore allowed. The employees, who retired on and after 30.05.2025 from the services of the IHRD on superannuation, shall be reinstated in service and permitted to continue in service till they attain the age of retirement of 60 years. Considering the facts of the case, such employees will not be entitled to arrears of wages during the period they have not worked. However, the said period will be treated as duty for all other purposes including terminal/retiral benefits.