Dismissed

M.C.Kuttiyamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2009WP(C)/23000/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing the petition, the Court held that the petitioner's promotion was temporary under Rule 31A. As no specific rule enabled temporary promotees to claim retrospectivity, the Government's order rejecting the claim for retrospective promotion was upheld.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition against the order dated 05/06/2003 rejecting the claim for retrospective promotion is dismissed.

M.C.Kuttiyamma 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 23000 of 2003(K)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

M.C.KUTTIYAMMA, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RETD.), RESIDING AT NELLITHANANATHU HOUSE, MANGOTTUVAYAL P.O., KOTTOOLY, ARIYIDATHU PALAM, KOZHIKODE-16

¶10

BY ADV. MR. N.K.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO HOME AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKATH

¶17

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

¶18

WP(C).No. 23000 of 2003(K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E2-116319/97.

¶22

P2: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.04.1997 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA BY THE PETITIONERDATED 15.04.2000.

¶24

P4: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT G.O.(Rt). NO.1058/2000/HOME DATED 18.03.2000.

¶25

P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17.04.2000 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P6: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.04.1997 BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.

¶27

P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.04.2000.

¶28

P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE PRESIDENT'S SECRETARIAT, RASHTRAPATHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI DATED 22.01.1998.

¶29

P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.26665/02 DATED 19.09.2002.

¶30

P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT G.O.(Rt). NO.1076/2003/HOME DATED 05.06.2003.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

kkms/

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.23000 of 2003

¶38

Dated, this the 11^th day of November, 2009

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P10 order dated 05/06/2003.

¶41

By Ext.P4 order dated 18/03/2000, the petitioner, who

¶42

was then the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Women Cell), was promoted as Superintendent (Women Cell). She thereafter claimed retrospectivity to her promotion with effect from July, 1997. Representations made by her in this regard were not answered. Meanwhile, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30/04/2000. Therefore she filed O.P. No.26665/2002 before this Court and that original petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment dated 19/09/2002 directing consideration of her representations. Accordingly, her claim was considered and Ext.P10 order was issued on 05/06/2003 rejecting her claim. It is challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed.

¶43

As already seen, the petitioner’s contention is that the

¶44

WP(C) No.23000/2003

¶45

-2-

¶46

proposal for her promotion was made in July, 1997. But she actually promoted only in March, 2000. It is contended that the delay on the part of the authorities in effecting actual promotion resulted in delay of promotion as also monetary benefits. It is on that basis she claims retrospectivity to her promotion. However, a reading of Ext.P4 order of promotion and also Ext.P10 order rejecting her representations show that her promotion as Superintendent of Police was a temporary promotion under Rule 31A. No Rule is shown enabling temporary promotees to claim retrospectivity to their promotions.

¶47

In such circumstances, on the materials produced, I am not in a position to take a view different from the one taken by the Government in Ext.P10 order.

¶48

This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶49

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶50

M.C.Kuttiyamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Kuttiyamma 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

C.a.Abida Vs Smt.M.L.Lalitha

K.N. Sankara Pillai Vs State of Kerala and Others

T.S.Biju Vs State of Kerala

Thulasidas.K.C Vs the Director of Agriculture

E.O.Sebastian and Others Vs Secretary,Irrigation Department and Ors.

Ida Scadar Anslam Vs Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.