Dismissed

K.S.Prasannakumari v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC24 Jun 2010WP(C)/10262/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by an assistant clerk appointed on compassionate grounds, rejecting her claim for notional service and pension from the date of her application rather than appointment date, finding no rule supporting such reckoning.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition holding that service benefits can be claimed only subsequent to the date of appointment.

K.S.Prasannakumari Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 10262 of 2010(G) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

K.S.PRASANNAKUMARI, L.D.CLERK, ASST.DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT KAILAS, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L.

¶10

SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶13

THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶14

ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 &2 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 &2

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶17

W.P.(C).10262/2010

¶18

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2010

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Petitioner, after the death of her father, in 1990's, applied

¶21

for an employment on compassionate grounds. The application was considered and in 2006, she was appointed. Subsequently, petitioner submitted a representation that she be given notional service from the date of her application and on that basis her pensionary benefits be paid.

¶22

The claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected by Ext.P6. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the petitioner entered service only on 3.11.2006 and that her benefits can be reckoned only from that date. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶23

Even assuming that there was delay in appointing the petitioner which, is not proved on materials in the writ petition, service benefits can be claimed only for the period subsequent to

¶24

W.P.(C).10262/10

¶25

¶26

the appointment. Petitioner also has not produced any material indicating that there is any rule providing for reckoning the period prior to her appointment for any purposes. If that be so, the view taken in Ext.P6 that the period can be reckoned only from the date of commencing service, cannot be faulted. For that reason itself, I am not persuaded to direct consideration of Ext.P5 representation.

¶27

Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶29

mrcs

K.S.Prasannakumari v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Prasannakumari v. Travancore Devaswom Board

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/S Mir Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.Abdul Nazar

P.Aboobacker Vs the Director of Municipal Administration

K.O.Subran Vs State of Kerala and Others

Biju.O.P Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

Sheeja Kumari Vs General Manager

K.M.Surendran Vs State of Kerala