Disposed

Ibrahim Kutty v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2008WP(C)/15960/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a retired college principal alleging a shortfall in his Provident Fund. The court directed the Director of Collegiate Education to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation within three months after affording him an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director of Collegiate Education to consider the petitioner's representation within three months after affording him an opportunity to be heard.

Ibrahim Kutty Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 15960 of 2008(Y)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

K.IBRAHIMKUTTY, (RETIRED PRINCIPAL, MSM COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM), RESIDING AT MALAYIL HOUSE, VERUVALLY BHAGOM, KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

¶11

ADV. SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE ACCOUNTANTS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶20

............................................................................

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 15960 OF 2008

¶22

............................................................................ Dated this the 19^th June, 2008

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner retired as the Principal of M.S.M. College, Kayamkulam w.e.f. 31.03.2001. He was contributing to the Provident Fund from April, 1976 onwards. On his retirement, he was granted a sum of Rs. 407360/- on account of his Provident Fund. The petitioner had the grievance that there is a shortage in the sanctioned amount. It is stated that the petitioner has been submitting representations from 2002 onwards. Under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner requested the second respondent, the Director of Collegiate Education, to furnish a copy of the calculation sheet of the amount disbursed to the petitioner . The calculation sheet is marked as Ext. P3. The petitioner had submitted Ext. P2 representation dated 17.07.2007, in which it is stated that though there seems to be a credit of Rs.476063/- as on 31.08.2002, only a sum of Rs.407360/- was released to him and thus there is a deficit. According to the petitioner, as on 31.08.2002, the deficit amount together with interest would be Rs. 98,000/-.

¶25

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:

¶26

“I. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to recompute the petitioner's Provident Fund Account No. T 01821 and disburse the amounts due there under along with interest as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

II. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate order.

¶28

III. Issue such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 15960 OF 2008

¶31

may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice ; and

¶32

IV. Award costs. ”

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the time being the petitioner seeks only for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P2 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after perusing all the relevant documents and records. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the limited relief sought for by the petitioner is just and reasonable.

¶34

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Director of Collegiate Education to consider and dispose of Ext. P2 representation dated 17.07.2007, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition before the second respondent for the effective and proper disposal of Ext.P2 representation.

¶35

K.T. SANKARAN,

¶36

JUDGE.

¶37

Ibrahim Kutty v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim Kutty 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

The Manager, M.A.M.O. College Vs State of Kerala

B.Vasanthakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Muslim Educational & Cultural Form Vs State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary

Udayan.Y.S Vs the Principal.Govt.Dental College &Ors

Ajitha.K.T.K. Vs State of Kerala & Others