Retirement Age Parity Denied: Supreme Court Rules on Assistant Public Prosecutors

The case of The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. revolves around the demand for parity in the retirement age of Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) with that of Public Prosecutors (PPs) in Kerala. The Supreme Court examined whether the conditions of service of APPs were similar to those of PPs and whether their retirement age should be increased to 60 years.

The High Court had earlier dismissed the petition, rejecting the claim for uniformity in retirement age. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that APPs and PPs are governed by different service conditions and, therefore, cannot be treated at par.

Background of the Case

The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association, representing the interests of Assistant Public Prosecutors, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking an increase in their retirement age from 56 years to 60 years. The petition was based on the argument that Public Prosecutors, judicial officers, and other government officers enjoyed a retirement age of 60 years, whereas APPs were required to retire at 56.

The High Court rejected this claim, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. The key points raised in the case were:

• Assistant Public Prosecutors are appointed under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to conduct prosecutions in Magistrate Courts.
• Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, are appointed under Section 24 of the CrPC to conduct cases in Sessions Courts.
• Public Prosecutors are appointed for a term of three years and do not receive service benefits as government employees, whereas Assistant Public Prosecutors are permanent government employees entitled to pensions.
• In 2013, the Kerala government raised the retirement age for new recruits to 60 years, but those appointed before 2013 still retired at 56.

Key Legal Issues Considered

The Supreme Court examined the following legal questions:

• Whether Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors perform similar duties and should be treated equally in terms of retirement age.
• Whether different modes of appointment and service benefits justify different retirement ages.
• Whether the government’s decision to retain different retirement ages for APPs appointed before and after 2013 was discriminatory.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s (The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association) Arguments

The appellants contended:

• Both APPs and PPs perform similar functions in the criminal justice system.
• PPs, APPs, and judicial officers are considered officers of the court and should have a uniform retirement age.
• Since APPs hired after April 1, 2013, retire at 60, those hired before that date should also receive the same benefit.
• The disparity in retirement ages violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The association members were willing to forego their pension for the additional years of service if their retirement age was extended.

Respondent’s (State of Kerala) Arguments

The Kerala government countered:

• APPs and PPs have different modes of appointment and service conditions.
• APPs are recruited through the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) and are permanent government employees, whereas PPs are appointed for a three-year tenure.
• APPs enjoy all benefits applicable to government employees, including statutory pensions, while PPs do not.
• The 2013 change in retirement age applied only to new recruits and was tied to the introduction of the Contributory Pension Scheme.
• Extending the retirement age for APPs appointed before 2013 would create disparities among government employees.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Kerala government, stating:

“The method of appointment and conditions of service of Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors are qualitatively different.”

The Court emphasized:

• APPs are government employees with service benefits, while PPs are appointed on a contractual basis.
• Retirement age is a policy matter and cannot be changed arbitrarily.
• Different retirement ages for employees hired before and after 2013 were legally justified.
• The demand for uniformity in retirement age lacked legal merit.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that different service conditions justify different retirement ages.
• Policy decisions on retirement age must consider financial and administrative implications.
• The ruling ensures that government service rules remain consistent without arbitrary extensions.
• APPs appointed before 2013 will continue to retire at 56 years, while those appointed after 2013 will retire at 60.
• The Court rejected the plea to allow APPs to voluntarily forego their pension in exchange for extended service.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case provides clarity on the distinction between Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors. It reinforces the principle that service conditions and recruitment methods determine employment benefits, including retirement age.

While the demand for parity was based on perceived similarities in job functions, the Court upheld the Kerala government’s position that APPs and PPs have fundamentally different employment structures. This decision serves as a significant precedent in public sector employment disputes, affirming that policy decisions regarding service conditions should be based on well-defined criteria rather than subjective comparisons.

Petitioner Name: The Kerala Assistant Public Prosecutors Association.
Respondent Name: The State of Kerala & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 17-05-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Kerala Assistant vs The State of Kerala Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 17-05-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category