Disposed

K.G.Rajeevan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2009WP(C)/22463/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Commercial Tax Inspector, challenged the delay in disbursing terminal benefits due to pending disciplinary action. The court noted the disciplinary proceedings had been dropped and directed all respondents to finalize the terminal benefits payment within 8 weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

All respondents directed to finalize proceedings for grant of terminal benefits due to the petitioner within 8 weeks of the judgment.

K.G.Rajeevan Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 22463 of 2009(C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

K.G. RAJEEVAN, (COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR RETD.) AREEKULAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MANJAKKALA, AVANEESWARAN R.S.P.O., PIN 691 517, KOLLAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WPC NO.22463/09

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-23412/2007/TX DATED 5.6.2007.

¶22

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.6.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 19.7.2007 ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT 1.8.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P3 MEMO OF CHARGES.

¶25

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1/676/2007 DATED 4.5.2007 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CPC.1/07-08 DT 27.5.2008 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH COPIES TO THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA AND THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT, AMARAVILA.

¶27

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 31.7.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-23412/07/TX DATED 17.8.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5 23412/07/TX DATED 20.8.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1-2455/07 DT 4.9.2007 OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR.

¶31

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A 11142/2007 DATED 17.9.2007 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.5.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22463 OF 2009 (C)

¶37

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

¶38

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2009

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Petitioner was a Commercial Tax Inspector. He attained the age of superannuation on 31/3/2008. However, his terminal benefits were not disbursed apparently for the reason that disciplinary action was pending. From Order No.A5-23412/07/TX dated 17/8/09, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P13, it is seen that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner has been dropped. It is also ordered that the period spent under suspension will be treated as duty except for pay and allowance which is limited to the subsistence allowance already drawn.

¶41

Now that the disciplinary action is dropped as above, there is no reason why further delay should be caused in the disbursement of the terminal benefits.

¶42

Therefore, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents shall finalise the proceedings for grant of terminal benefits due to the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶45

K.G.Rajeevan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Rajeevan v. 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

P.Sahadevan Vs Union of India

Rekha S.Vysakh and 2 Others Vs Registrar of Co-Op.Societies & Others

P.Mohan Kumar and Another Vs Rdo & 2 Others

O.C.Mary Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Mohammed Sherief Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.R.Sona Vs State of Kerala and Others