Allowed

M.I.Anna @ M.I.Kunjamma v. the Secretary,Thiruvalla Muncipality

Kerala HC10 Jun 2010WP(C)/14931/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired municipality employee, challenged an order denying full pay during a period of suspension. The court held that since the suspension was found wholly unjustified and no disciplinary action was initiated, the petitioner was entitled to full salary for that period and directed the respondents to disburse the dues.

What did the court decide?

The order denying full pay was set aside; respondents directed to disburse full pay and allowances within two months.

M.I.Anna @ M.I.Kunjamma Vs the… — 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 THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 14931 of 2005(C)

PETITIONER(S):

M.I.ANNA @ KUNJAMMA, ASWATHY BHAVAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, NALUKODI P.O., CHANGANASSERY, RETIRED UDC, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.P.REGHURAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE SECRETARY, THRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND, SC.THIRUVALLA MUNC FOR R1 G.P.SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC NO.14931/2005

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

EXT.P1:- COPY OF ORDER NO.A4-2121/02 OF R2 EXT.P2:- COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt).NO.2865/2003/LSGD OF R3 EXT.P3:- COPY OF ORDER NO.B7-7818/2002 OF R2 EXT.P4:- COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt) NO.949/04/LSGD OF R3 EXT.P5:- COPY OF LETTER DTD.18.12.2004 OF R3

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.14931 of 2005 (C)

¶26

Dated, this the 10^th day of June, 2010

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ext.P5 order is under challenge. The petitioner was a Upper Division Clerk in the Thiruvalla Municipality. By Ext.P1 order dated 17/07/2002, she was placed under suspension on the ground that by producing bogus documents, she availed of terminal benefits due to her deceased husband and also obtained appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶29

She applied to the 3^rd respondent for revocation of the suspension. By Ext.P2 order, the suspension was revoked. In Ext.P2, it is stated thus:-

¶30

“As ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, petitioner was heard on 19/02/2003. On the basis of the contentions put forward by the petitioner at the time of hearing and also based the report from the Director of Urban Affairs, Government have examined the case in detail. The petitioner Smt.M.I.Anna @ M.I.Kunjamma and late Mr.M.J.Joshua got married on 04/01/74 at St.Lukes Church, Kanakkary. The genuineness of the marriage certificate produced by the petitioner was examined with the marriage Register maintained at the Church and convinced.

¶31

In the above circumstances Government are pleased to

¶32

WP(C) No.14931/2005

¶33

-2-

¶34

accord sanction to re-instate the petitioner - Smt.M.I.Anna @ M.I. Kunjamma in service with immediate effect. The Director of Urban Affairs will give suitable posting to her. The orders on the question of treating of period of suspension will be issued separately.”

¶35

Accordingly, Ext.P3 order was issued and the petitioner resumed duties on 26/08/2003. However, while issuing Ext.P4, the order regularising her suspension period, she has been denied full salary and her emoluments has been limited to the subsistence allowance that has been received during the suspension period. It is in these circumstances, challenging Ext.P4 to the extent full salary has been declined to the petitioner, this writ petition is filed.

¶36

The claim of the petitioner, in my view, has to be appreciated in the context of Rule 56B(3) of Part-I, K.S.R., which provides that if suspension is found to be wholly unjustified, the Officer shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had not been suspended. In this case, the facts stated in Ext.P2 show that the suspension was wholly unjustified. That apart, no disciplinary action has been initiated. If that be so, the petitioner could not have been denied full pay and allowances

¶37

WP(C) No.14931/2005

¶38

-3-

¶39

and the contrary view taken in Ext.P4 cannot be sustained.

¶40

Therefore, Ext.P4 to the extent full pay and allowances is denied to the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to disburse full pay and allowances to the petitioner after deducting the amounts received by her during the period of suspension. Orders shall be passed and emoluments shall be released as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶43

M.I.Anna @ M.I.Kunjamma v. the Secretary,Thiruvalla Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.Anna @ M.I.Kunjamma v. the Secretary,Thiruvalla Muncipality

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. Saraswathy Vs Director, Imhans

Mohanachandran Vs Departmental Promotion Committee II & or

K.v.Suma Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha Vs State of Kerala

C.N. Spenola Vs the Director and Another

V.T.Devassia Vs Secretary to Govt.Taxes(F) Department