Thiruvananthapuram: DYFI against High Court order extending term of office of High Court employees past retirement period. The DYFI State Committee issued a statement saying the order violates the fundamental principle of natural justice, impartiality, and is contemptuous of the judiciary.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has allowed two High Court employees who are due to retire this month to continue serving beyond retirement age. DYFI said the order was surprising and detrimental to the interest of young people.
Joint Chancellor Vijayakumari Amma and Dafedar PP Sajeev Kumar, who are due to retire from service on December 31 after reaching the retirement age of 56, have applied to the court asking to be allowed to continue serving. In the interim order issued at the public hearing, it was stated that they can continue to serve for the time being and further service will be subject to the court’s final decision. DYFI also pointed out that the duo had cleverly exploited complex loopholes in the case filings to get favorable orders within minutes.
Judge Anu Sivaraman has to hear the petitions regarding the retirement age as per the matter before the judges. Judge Anu’s bench is considering applications by three High Court employees to raise the retirement age to 58. After seeking the government’s position, Justice Anu Sivaraman adjourned these petitions for later consideration. Justice Devan Ramachandran’s personal staff member E. Signatories on Justice Anu’s bench include K Kunhikyashnan. But the youth organization suggested that a group of lawyers and High Court employees tried in an organized way to bypass this bench and take the case to the bench of Judge Devan Ramachandran.
As the High Court is closed for the Christmas holidays from 23 January to 3 January, it will be virtually impossible for the government to even appeal the verdict.
When it is not a matter of absolute urgency, the same High Court judge within minutes has delivered a verdict against the public interest without even listening to the government’s response to the petition of the employees of the same court, which is causing contempt public opinion about the justice system. In a country reeling from its highest unemployment rate in history, when judges shouldn’t be nepotists, such orders further dim the job prospects of young people. It is by no means unacceptable that such orders, anti-juvenile and disrespectful of the justice system, are continually issued by a judge of a higher institution such as the High Court. This was stated by DYFI State Secretary VK Sanoj.
Story highlights: dyfI v high court judge devan ramachandran
