Disposed

Mariyakutty Umma v. Director of Panchayath

Kerala HC7 Oct 2010WP(C)/19072/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought family pension as widow of a deceased sweeper who died in 1989. Court held petitioner not entitled to pension. Court directed petitioners to approach government for specific order if she wishes similar benefits to part-time contingent employees.

What did the court decide?

Court invoked discretion not to grant pension but directed petitioner to file representation for similar treatment as part-time employees.

Mariyakutty Umma Vs Director of Panchayath — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 19072 of 2006(U)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

K. MARIYAKUTTY UMMA, AGED 82 YEARS, W/O.K. ABDULLA, KALAMTHODIYIL HOUSE, EAST OTTAPALAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN, SRI.R.SREEHARI.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD.

¶15

3. OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM.

¶16

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SRI.SAVIO JOY.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 19072 of 2006(U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND ABDULLA ISSUED BY THE OTTAPALAM PANCHAYATH.

¶23

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 08/06/2000 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM

¶24

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26/04/2004.

¶25

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/05/2006 SENT BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DATED 24/05/2006 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/06/2006.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.19072 of 2006

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2010

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner's husband late K. Abdulla was a full-time Sweeper under the erstwhile Ottapalam Panchayath which was later upgraded as a Municipality. He died on 31.3.1989 while in service. The petitioner applied for terminal benefits including family pension. Other amounts were disbursed to the petitioner as per Ext.P4, except family pension. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to get family pension. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

¶36

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner as the widow of late Shri Abdulla who died while in service as a Full Time Sweeper in the erstwhile Ottapalam Panchayath with arrears”

¶37

The learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that, the papers were forwarded to the 1^st respondent and it is for the Government to sanction the same. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the family pension was

¶38

W.P.(C)No.19072 of 2006

¶39

-2-

¶40

sanctioned to contingent employees of Panchayaths only with effect from 01.04.1991 and since the petitioner's husband died on 31.3.1989 the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to family pension with effect from 01.04.1991 since the scheme should be made applicable to all, irrespective of date of death or date of retirement.

¶41

I am unable to countenance the contention of the

¶42

petitioner. If the same is to be given the dependants of all employees who worked in the panchayaths from the date of the inception of the panchayat has to be given family pension. That cannot be the intention. Therefore I do not think that the petitioner can claim family pension even from 01.04.1991. However the counsel for the petitioner points out that, part-time contingent employees of panchayaths have been given such benefits as per government orders dated 11.06.2001 and 21.07.2001. If the petitioner files a representation seeking similar benefits, if the same is allowable, the Government shall consider and pass

¶43

W.P.(C)No.19072 of 2006

¶44

-3-

¶45

appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of the same.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶48

shg/

Mariyakutty Umma v. Director of Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyakutty Umma v. Director of Panchayath

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

Saji.S.U. Vs Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

T.K. Vanchi Vs Union of India

Mohamed Rafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

P.Rajan Vs Union of India

K.R.Bose Vs the Ksfdc

Ajakumar.K. Vs Kerala State Audio Visual & Reprographic