'Retire At 56? Unfair' : SC Judge Ajay Rastogi On Retirement Age In Kerala Govt Services

The Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar was hearing a matter pertaining to medical services, wherein the retirement age appears to be 62 years across the board. However, Justice Rastogi pointed out that he had heard that, in Kerala the retirement age for public servants is 56 years. He expressed concern that given the age of marriage has gone up, by the time a person reaches 56 years, they would have to retire without being able to meet their family obligations.

“If it is 56 years, one cannot meet his family obligations by that time? These days, the marriageable age is 27 years or 28 years. By the time children are in college you retire. That is unfair.”

Senior Advocate, Mr. V. Giri, appearing in the matter, pointed out that, on the other hand, every year several graduate and post graduate students, with great potential, enter the job market. Therefore, he indicated that if the age of retirement is to be enhanced, the job market would become saturated.

Not convinced, Justice Rastogi was of the opinion -

“You have to balance both things.”

Justice Ravikumar stated that whenever there is a proposal for enhancement there is a strong opposition, especially from the student organisations.

Justice Rastogi noted that in all other States, the age of retirement for public servants is 60 years.

“You don’t find this anywhere. Other states have come up to 60 years.”

Agreeing to his observations, Mr. Giri stated that -

“What your lordships have observed is actually right. It creates a societal problem. Kids are still in college.”

Justice Rastogi opined -

“Earlier the marriageable age was 23 years…Now the marriage age is 28 years. Those who are able to get employment, they should be able to discharge their family obligations by the time they retire.”

Justice Ravikumar noted that all the petitioner seeking enhancement in the age of superannuation has been dismissed by the Apex Court.

Mr. Giri added that it is a consistent stand of the Supreme Court, based on precedents.