Disposed

G.Mohandas v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC24 Jan 2008WP(C)/3034/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay by the Government in approving the pay scale for the Managing Director of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation. The Court directed the Government to decide on the fixation of the pay scale within two months and directed the Corporation to disburse benefits upon approval. The case concerns employment remuneration and executive approval delays. (1 paragrap

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider representations and take a decision on granting approval for the fixation of the pay scale within two months. Second respondent to disburse benefits upon

G.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala and Another — 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 3034 of 2007(J)

PETITIONER:

G.MOHANDAS,"SIVAM", AMBELIPADAM ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. FORMER M.D, K.S.W.C,COCHIN-16.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN

¶11

SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SMT.A.K.SAJITHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 3034 of 2007

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1A COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 24.9.2001 EXT.P2A COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MIMUTES OF THE 241ST MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXT.P3A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.5.2006 EXT.P4A COPY OF THEIR COMMUNICATION DATED 11.5.2006 EXT.P5A COPY OF AN EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED NIL EXT.P6A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.8.06 EXT.P7COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.29055/01 DATED 21.11.06 EXT.P8COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.28916/01 DATED 21.11.06 EXT.P9A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.06

(TRUE COPY)

P.A TO JUDGE

V.GIRI, J

W.P.(C).3034/2007

Dated this the 24^th day of January, 2008

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner had served as the Managing Director of

¶29

the second respondent, Corporation, during the period from 24.9.2001 to 16.8.2006. His grievance is that the scale of pay applicable to the Managing Director was not fixed during his tenure and consequently he did not receive the emoluments due to him. By Ext.P2, the Board of Directors of the Corporation had proposed a pay scale of Rs.16300-450-19900/- with other benefits. Thereafter, by Ext.P3, second respondent sought for an approval in that regard from the first respondent, Government. By Ext.P4, approval in that behalf was granted by the Central Warehousing Corporation. Exts.P6 to P9 are further representations by the petitioner before the Government for approval of Ext.P2 and consequent disbursal of the salary due to the petitioner. Apparently petitioner was permitted to receive only the advance amount by way of salary for each month in the post of General Manager.

¶30

W.P.(C).3034/2007

¶31

¶32

There is a dispute as to whether the amount by way of advance salary was legally sanctioned by the Board of Executive Committee or not. It is not necessary to resolve that dispute in this case. Essentially this writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to disburse the salary to the petitioner in the pay scale proposed under Ext.P2.

¶33

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.N.D.Premachandran, learned Government Pleader Mr.Nandakumar and the learned Standing counsel Mr.Majnu Komath.

¶34

Mr.Premachandran submits that as evidenced by Ext.P5, concerned Minister as also the Chief Minister had apparently endorsed approval for acceptance of pay scale resolved under Ext.P2. But there is nevertheless delay in the Government giving approval.

¶35

In the circumstances where Government is yet to grant approval, I am of the view that the Government should be directed to take a decision within a time frame.

¶36

W.P.(C).3034/2007

¶37

¶38

In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exts.P3, P6 and P9 and take a decision in the matter of granting approval to the fixation of pay scale applicable to the post of Managing Director of the second respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a coy of this judgment. If the Government accords approval, consequential steps shall be taken by the second respondent to disburse the benefits due to the petitioner.

¶39

V.GIRI, Judge

¶40

mrcs

G.Mohandas v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Mohandas v. State of Kerala and Another

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.D.Thressia Vs T.M.Manoharan and Another

T.L.Jose Vs State of Kerala

The Cochin Port Trust,Willington Island Vs State of Kerala,Rep. by Chief Secretary

Filesius P. Vs Dr.Shylaja

M.Sivadasan Vs the Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Elizabeth Gladis M.J. Vs the State of Kerala & Another