Dismissed

C.R.Damodaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2007OP/39/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition for habeas corpus, the High Court addressed claims regarding unpaid accrued medical relief grant interest. The Court observed that interest had been calculated incorrectly up to the date of the liability certificate. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to pay outstanding interest for the specific period between September 30, 2000, and January 30, 2001.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to disburse due interest from 30-9-2000 to 30-1-2001 at 12% per annum.

C.R.Damodaran Nair Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2007 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 39 of 2002(D)

¶6

---------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

C.R.DAMODARAN NAIR, RETIRED STORE VERIFICATION OFFICER, CHERUVATHUR PUTHENPURA, ONAKKUR P.O.,MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

----------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

3. SUB TREASURY OFFICER, PIRAVOM.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER ON CMP. NO.39/2002 IN OP. NO.39/2002

¶19

DISMISSED

¶20

20/06/2007

¶21

SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 6.11.2000 IN W.A. NO.2488/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶25

EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt) 180/2001/G&FWD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 23.1.01.

¶26

EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 30.1.01 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AE1-6322/98/DHS DT. 15.12.01 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.S2-273/98/DMSK DT. 30.9.2000 FROM THE STORE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT MEDICAL STORE , KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

/TRUE COPY/

¶30

tss

¶31

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. No. 39 OF 2002 D

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶34

Dated this the 20^th June, 2007

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner retired from service as Store Verification Officer in the Health Services Department on 28-2-1998. He had occasion to approach this Court

¶37

on an earlier occasion when delay occurred in the disbursement of D.C.R.G. due to him. Ultimately, a Division Bench of this Court in Ext. P1 judgment issued the following direction:

¶38

“We direct that interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-6-1998 on the entire amount due to the appellant be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶39

Ext. P2 shows that he was paid an amount of Rs.13,135/-

¶40

as interest for the period from 1-6-1998 to 30-9-2000.

¶41

The petitioner contends that he was not paid the entire amount of interest inspite of the judgment, Ext. P1.

¶42

The petitioner has got a further complaint that the interest for the enhanced amount of D.C.R.G. was also not admitted by the respondents which is evident from paragraph 3 of Ext. P4.

¶43

In the counter affidavit the stand taken to

¶44

OP No.39 /2002

¶45

-2-

¶46

justify the payment of interest only upto to 30-9-2000 is that the said date is the date of issue of liability certificate which is the relevant date. The judgment Ext. P1 will show that even though initial steps were taken ultimately the liability was only to the tune of Rs. 938.47. Their Lordships had observed that it was unfortunate that for fixing the liability of Rs.938.47 the office took two years. Accordingly it was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1-6-1998 on the entire amount due to the appellant. It is clear that the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest upto the date of payment, ie. 30-1-2001. Therefore, the authorities were not

¶47

justified in limiting the interest upto 30-9-2000.

¶48

As regards the claim for interest on the revised D.C.R.G. the learned Govt. Pleader points out, on instruction, that the same was paid to him by payment of Rs.5686/- during the pendency of the writ petition. This is recorded. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the due interest from 30-9-2000 to 30-1-2001 on the D.C.R.G. of Rs.46,912/- at the rate of 12% as

¶49

OP No.39 /2002 -3directed in Ext. P1 judgment. Needful will be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶51

jan/

C.R.Damodaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R.Damodaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Chacko Mathew Vs the Asst.Excise Commissioner

Changat Vijayan Vs the Principal

M.Janamma Vs the Chief Engineer

P.N.Vijayan Vs the Director of Industries

N.Prvathi Kumari Vs the State of Kerala

A.P.Janardhanan Vs State of Kerala