Disposed

Mathiri Davidson v. Chairman & Managing Director,Kbps

Kerala HC5 Nov 2009WP(C)/1771/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking 50% of the deceased employee's DCRG benefits for the petitioner. The petition was decided based on the second respondent's affidavit offer to share the benefits equally.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to disburse 50% of the DCRG to the petitioner and balance 50% to the 2nd respondent within 4 weeks.

Mathiri Davidson Vs Chairman & Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1771 of 2009(J)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

MATHIRI DAVIDSON W/O.DAVIDSON, ILLAYAMCHATTIL HOUSE, KANIAMAPAL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM PO,TRICHUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TONY DAVIDSON,S/O. DAVIDSON,ILLAYAMCHATTIL HOUSE KANIAMPAL ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM PO, TRICHUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY KAKKANAD PO, KOCHI 682 030, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. SKYLU ANTONY, D/O. A.K.ANTONY ARAKKAL HOUSE, MUTHEDOM , MARADU , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. WINCY DAVIDSON, D/O.DAVIDSON ILLAYAMCHATTIL HOUSE, KANIAMPAL ROAD KUNNAMKULAM PO, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶16

4. RAMANI DAVIDSON, D/O. DAVIDSON ILLAYAMCHATTIL HOUSE, KALLIPTADAM PO KULAPPILLY, SHORANUR-2.

¶17

ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R2 SMT.P.A.PRIYA FOR R3,4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WPC NO.1771/09

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 23.6.08 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXTS. OF R1

¶24

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF LEGALHEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DT 1.3.2008.

¶25

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1771 OF 2009 (J)

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2009

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner is the mother of one Mr.Joy Davidson, who was an employee of the 1^st respondent. He expired on 3/11/2007. The 2^nd respondent is the wife of the deceased and respondents 3 and 4 are his sisters.

¶35

There are two prayers in this writ petition. The first prayer is to direct the 1^st respondent to disburse DCRG benefits due to the petitioner being one of the legal heirs of the deceased. The second prayer is not to confirm the probation of the 2^nd respondent, who has been appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme. The second prayer is not pressed before me, when the matter was taken up for hearing.

¶36

Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submit that they are not put forwarding any claim for any share for the DCRG that is due.

¶37

In so far as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, the 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit enclosing Ext.R1(c), an affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, where it is stated thus:

¶38

WPC 1771/09

¶39

:2 :

¶40

I have no objection in giving one half of the terminal and all other benefits of late Sri.Joy Davidson from KBPS including Provident Fund and Gratuity to his mother Smt.Mathiri Davidson the remaining one half may be paid to me. I reserve the right for compassionate appointment under the dying in harness scheme.

¶41

The petitioner is satisfied with the offer thus made by the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent also confirms her willingness to abide by the statement in the affidavit.

¶42

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1^st respondent shall disburse 50% of the DCRG to the petitioner and the balance 50% shall be disbursed to the 2^nd respondent. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶44

Mathiri Davidson v. Chairman & Managing Director,Kbps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathiri Davidson v. Chairman & Managing Director,Kbps

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

Swapna v.Nair Vs Smt.Chitra

P.Haridasan Vs Secretary, Rta, Kzd. (Taxation Officer)

K.G.Ajayakumar Vs M.R.Amalamma

K.S.E.Board,Rep.by Its Chairman & Others Vs C.K.Narayanan and Another

Velayudhan P.& Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

P.G.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala