Allowed

K.P.Cleetus v. Commissioner,Land REVENUE,TRIVANDRUM150.

Kerala HC29 Jul 2010WP(C)/10377/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-disbursement of terminal benefits due to undeclared probation. Court directed declaration of probation without upfront remittance of erroneously paid increments, ordering recovery from terminal dues instead.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of probation without insisting on remittance of erroneously received increment amounts; recovery of such amounts from terminal benefits due to the petitioner.

K.P.Cleetus Vs Commissioner,Land… — 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 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 10377 of 2006(I) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

K.P.CLEETUS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.PETER, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.RESHMI POULOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC NO.10377/06

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 27.4.1994 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 15.6.2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10377 OF 2006 (I)

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2010

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to declare the probation of the petitioner with effect from the date on which he had completed two years service and to grant him all monetary benefits.

¶29

In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, in Para 5 it is stated thus:

¶30

“The second and further increments to the incumbent was erroneously sanctioned to the individual by the Head of Offices without declaration of probation. Hence it requires that he should remit the amount erroneously sanctioned to him before declaration of probation. The probation can be declared as and when the individual remit the amount to Government, which has been sanctioned erroneously. The representation of the petitioner has been considered and necessary directions have been given to the Tahsildar, Peermade to furnish proposal to this office after remittance of amount erroneously sanctioned to the individual, as and when the representation received in this office.”

¶31

Since the facts stated above are uncontraverted, the

¶32

right of the respondents to realise the amount erroneously paid to the petitioner cannot be disputed. Counsel for the petitioner

¶33

WPC No. 10377/06

¶34

:2 :

¶35

submits that on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from service in 2009 and that on the ground that probation has not been declared, his terminal benefits have not been disbursed so far.

¶36

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has retired from service and as according to the counsel, terminal benefits are still remaining unpaid, I feel it is only appropriate that respondents shall recover the amount, if any due, on account of the erroneous payment made from out of the terminal benefits and the balance amount admittedly due to the petitioner should be disbursed.

¶37

In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.

¶38

(1) That the respondents shall declare the probation of the petitioner, without insisting on the petitioner remitting the amounts erroneously received by him towards increments.

¶39

(2) The amounts if any to be remitted by the petitioner shall be recovered from the terminal benefits that are due to him and the balance amount alone shall be disbursed to him.

¶40

(3) Steps in the above direction shall be initiated and

¶41

WPC No. 10377/06

¶42

:3 :

¶43

amounts shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶45

K.P.Cleetus v. Commissioner,Land REVENUE,TRIVANDRUM150.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Cleetus v. Commissioner,Land REVENUE,TRIVANDRUM150.

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

State of Kerala Vs C.K.Johny

Pankajakasthuri Ayurveda Medical College Vs Govt of India and Ors.

N.Bahuleyan Unni Vs Union of India

P.G.Satheedevi and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Korah K.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Dr.T.a.Habeeb Vs State of Kerala & Another