Disposed

State of Kerala v. M.Balakrishnan

Kerala HC14 Jan 2008RP/1229/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition concerning a salary and DCRG payment order, the court clarified that the respondents must disburse amounts only after ascertaining the petitioner's liability and allowing correction of the retired Head Clerk status error.

What did the court decide?

Court directed respondents to correct the status error with authority and clarified that disbursement is conditional on liability fixation.

State of Kerala Vs M.Balakrishnan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

RP.No. 1229 of 2007(T)

¶6

---------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20537/2007 Dated 07/09/2007

¶7

REVIEW PETITONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, EP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION' THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

THE SUB REGISTRAR, KODALY, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

M.BALAKRISHNAN, HEAD CLERK (RETIRED) SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, RESIDING AT RAJEEVAM, KUTHAPPADY, THAMMANAM P.O. KOCHI.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI, J

¶19

R.P.1229/2007

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2008

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The operative direction in the judgment dated 7.9.2007 to the respondents is only to disburse the amount found due and admissible by way of DCRG and arrears of salary. Exts.P4 and P6 orders referred to therein shows the petitioner as Sub Registrar. R.P is filed only on two aspects. Firstly liability as regards the petitioner is concerned is yet to be finalized. Secondly though the petitioner had been retired as Head Clerk, this aspect was not noticed in Exts.P4 and P6.

¶23

In so far as the first aspect is concerned, direction was only to disburse the amount which is found due and admissible provided there is no liability fixed on the petitioner. This means that if liability is fixed, disbursal can only be of the amount due and admissible as DCRG less the amount fixed as liability. No further clarification is necessary in this regard.

¶24

R.P.1229/2007

¶25

¶26

In so far as the contention that Ext.P4 and P6 did

¶27

not reflect the petitioner's status as Head Clerk, is concerned, I am of the view, that this could only be treated as an error that would be amenable to correction by the appropriate authority. Subject to these observations, Review Petition is disposed of.

¶28

V.GIRI, Judge

¶29

mrcs

State of Kerala v. M.Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. M.Balakrishnan

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

N.K.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

C.R. Chandralekha Vs Director of Insurance Medical Services

J.Ajith Kumar Vs the Secretary, Kseb

P.N.Mohanadasan Vs Dr.Shylaja

M.a.Mohammed Ali Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Maram Veettil Sobha Vs S.M.Vijayanand