Allowed

M.Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2008WP(C)/1402/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding retirement benefits for a high school assistant, the High Court ordered the Deputy Director of Education to expeditiously consider the petitioner's claim under an existing government order, setting a three-month deadline for result if the required report is produced.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to pass necessary orders following the government order within three months of production of a copy of this judgment, ensuring the petitioner's claim is considered expediti

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1402 of 2008(P) -------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶5

M.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM) (RETIRED) ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL, AROOR (RESIDING AT ARUN NIVAS, PERUMBALAM688 570, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶7

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

THE PRINCIPAL, ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

THE HEADMASTER, ST.AUGUSTINE'S HIGH SCHOOL, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

SHRI.T.B.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC NO.1402/2008

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 :	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.61595/E3/05/G.EDN. OF THE GOVERNMENT.
P2 : EDN.	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G1/17219/05 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DATED 30/08/2006
P3 :	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G1/17219/05 OF THE --DO-- --DO-- DATED 03/11/2006.
P4 :	COPY OF the LETTER NO.B5-7112/06 OF THE DIST. EDL. OFFICER.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) No.1402 of 2008

¶25

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2008

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner is seeking implementation of Ext.P1, an order issued by the 1^st respondent, giving him the benefits mentioned therein. According to the learned Government Pleader, following Ext.P1, the Deputy Director has sought for a report from the DEO and that the same is awaited. It is stated that on receipt of the report, the petitioner’s claim will be considered in the light of Ext.P1 and the benefits shall be worked out and released.

¶28

Now that Ext.P1 order has been issued by the Government, it is the duty of the 3^rd respondent to extend the benefits thereunder. If as stated above, he has called for the report from the 4^th respondent, he should ensure that the same is received, and the claim of the petitioner is considered on an expeditious basis, so that the benefit of Ext.P1 can be extended to the petitioner without any further delay.

¶29

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3^rd respondent shall, pass necessary orders following Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶31

M.Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Thomas v. the 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

Quereshi Aftab Dawood Vs Shri.D.D.Ingty

S.Purushothaman Vs Authorised Officer/Dy.Tahsildar(Rr),Ekm.

V.Mamukoya Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Antony

P.Syamkumar Vs State of Kerala

O.Beena Vs the State of Kerala and Others