Superannuation parity denied for Assistant Public Prosecutors, as distinct service conditions justified different retirement ages.

Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31 March 2013 were held not entitled to parity with Public Prosecutors in the age of superannuation. The Court found the two posts legally distinct: Assistant Public Prosecutors were selected through the Public Service Commission and governed by government service rules, while Public Prosecutors were appointed from a panel of advocates for fixed terms without government service benefits. Similarity in duties or their status as officers of the Court was held insufficient to require equal retirement age. The challenge to differential superannuation ages was rejected, including the cut-off-based distinction tied to different pension regimes.

---

---

Issues: Whether Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed on or before 31 March 2013 were entitled to parity with Public Prosecutors in the age of superannuation at 60 years.

Analysis: The Assistant Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors were held to be differently situated in law and service conditions. Assistant Public Prosecutors were appointed through competitive selection under the Kerala Public Service Commission and were governed by the service rules applicable to government employees, while Public Prosecutors were appointed from a panel of advocates, held office for a fixed term, and did not enjoy government service benefits. Similarity in duties or the fact that both acted as officers of the Court was found insufficient to justify parity in retirement age. The differential superannuation ages among Assistant Public Prosecutors themselves were also upheld because the cut-off date corresponded to different pension regimes applicable to government employees.

Conclusion: The claim for parity in the age of superannuation was rejected and the challenge to the differential retirement age failed.

---