JUDGMENT : M.B. Snehalatha, J. This Writ Appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is directed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2005 in W.P(C) No.18190 of 2024. 2. The appellant-petitioner herein filed the Writ Petition (C) No.18190 of 2024 invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Ext.P7 Government order dated 8.5.2024 on the ground that the said order was issued by the 1 st respondent State without considering Ext.P2 to P4, as directed in Ext.P6 judgment dated 15.03.2024 in W.P.(C) No.6337 of 2024 and to declare that daily wage employees under the Hospital Development Society (HDS) in the hospitals under the 2 nd respondent Director of Homeopathy, including the appellant- petitioner are eligible and entitled for enhancement of age of superannuation from 56 years to the age of 65 years, as granted to their counterparts in the Health and Family Welfare Department, vide Ext.P2 Government order dated 02.08.2018 and to declare that appellant-petitioner is eligible to continue till the completion of age of 65 years or in the alternative upto the age of 60 years in accordance with Rule 60(b) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). The appellant-petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent State to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation dated 6.2.2024 made by him within a time frame. 3. Appellant's-petitioner's case in the writ petition was that he is an ex-service man who was working as a Security Guard on daily wages under the HDS at the Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and he is continuing as such from 20.4.2012 onwards. He is due to retire on attaining the age of 56 years, on 31.3.2024. By the order dated 30.1.2015, the age limit of the daily wage employees under the HDS in the Government Ayurveda College Hospital was enhanced to 60 years, based on the decision in the General Body held on 14.01.2015. But subsequently, the said order was cancelled by the 1 st respondent State, vide Government order dated 08.09.2016. On the formulation of AYUSH department, Ayurveda came under the said department. Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 02.08.2018 enhancing the age of daily wage employees working under HDS in the Health Department by 65 years. But subsequently, the said order was cancelled by the 1 st respondent State, vide Government order dated 08.09.2016. On the formulation of AYUSH department, Ayurveda came under the said department. Government issued Ext.P2 order dated 02.08.2018 enhancing the age of daily wage employees working under HDS in the Health Department by 65 years. Since the AYUSH Department was already segregated from the Health Department, the benefit of the said order was not made available to those working under the HDS in Government Ayurveda College Hospital, though they were identically placed as their counterparts in the Health Department. The 2 nd respondent had requested the 1 st respondent to enhance the retirement age of daily wage employees working under the HDS in the Ayurveda College Hospital also. According to the appellant, as the contract staff of the HDS in the Health Department is eligible to continue till he attains the age of 65 years, the same criteria is applicable to the appellant and he is eligible to continue till 65 years. In W.P.(c) No.6337 of 2024, filed by the appellant, this Court had directed the 1 st respondent State to consider the representation made by the appellant in the light of Exts.P2 to P4 and to pass a decision and not to implement the same for a week if it is decided to terminate him from the service of the HDS. According to the appellant, 1 st respondent passed Ext.P7 order dated 08.05.2024 rejecting the representation without considering any of the contentions raised by him. 4. Though Ext.P7 order was challenged in W.P.(C) No.18190 of 2024, the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition holding that Ext.P2 does not confer any indefeasible right on the person employed on a contract basis under the National Health Mission to continue till he attains the age of 65 years and it is left to the discretion of the hospital authority to keep the person engaged on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. The issue that requires consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants any interference. 7. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. The issue that requires consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge warrants any interference. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the retirement age with regard to persons employed on a contract basis under the Hospital Development Society (HDS), the Hospital Development Committee/the Hospital Management Committee, etc. under the project funded by 'Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yogana' has not been fixed by virtue of Ext.P2 Government order dated 2.8.2018 and therefore, the maximum age upto which the person could be employed on contract basis under the National Heath Mission, which is a programme funded by the Central Government under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana will be 65 years. Since the staff of the HDS in the Government Medical College are eligible to continue upto 65 years, the same criteria is applicable in the case at hand. Both the HDS staff under the Health and Family Welfare Department as well as the staff of Government Ayurveda College Hospitals can only be considered as single class and hence any discrimination in the age of retirement would amount to unreasonable classification in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that appellant-petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis under the HDS in the Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram; that he attained the age of 56 years on 31.3.2024; that there is no legal right to the appellant to claim for enhancement of retirement age since the Health Department and Ayush Department are two different departments and the nature of the work is different. The appointment of the appellant was purely temporary on daily wage basis and there is no guarantee for his tenure as a security guard and he is liable to be terminated at any time. The HDS was permitted to appoint casual labourers and the HDS is not conferred with the right to alter the service conditions including hike in the wages or the enhancement of retirement age; and that the appellant's claim for engagement till the age of 65 years, the retirement age of employees under the projects funded by Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yogana (RSBY) cannot be sustained. 9. 9. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that even if one considers the language employed in the said Government order, it gives discretion to the hospital authorities concerned to keep the person engaged on a contract basis under the National Health Mission up to 65 years of age. Ext.P2 Government order does not confer any indefeasible right on the person employed on a contract basis under the National Health Mission to continue till he/she attains the age of 65 years. It is left to the discretion of hospital authority to keep the person engaged on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years. Therefore, the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right under the contract or as per Ext.P2 Government order dated 02.08.2018 to remain in employment on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years. 10. It was ordered that the appellant may be given employment after he has attained the age of 56 years for a further period on a contract basis, depending on the availability of the work and his conduct and performance. Such a decision shall be taken only by the hospital authority, and this Court cannot issue a mandamus for engaging him on a contract basis in the National Health Mission after he attained the age of 56 years and allow him to continue till he attains the age of 65 years. 11. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ] , a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 12. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. 12. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 13. Appellant would admit that he was working as a Security Guard on daily wage basis under the HDS in the Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also not in dispute that he attained the age of 56 years on 31.3.2024. Though Ext.P2 Government order states that the maximum age upto which a person could be employed on contract basis under the HDS/HMC/HDC and the projects funded by the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) will be 65 years, appellant who was working as a Security Guard on daily wage basis under the HDS in Government Ayurveda College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram cannot bank upon Ext.P2 Government order to claim that he is entitled to continue upto the age of 65 years, as he has no indefeasible right to remain in employment till he attains the age of 65 years, as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge. 14. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge that appellant does not have any indefeasible right under the contract or as per the Ext.P2 Government order dated 2.8.2018 to remain in employment on a contract basis till he attains the age of 65 years. In the result, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.