Disposed

S.Money K v. the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha

Kerala HC1 Jul 2010WP(C)/2189/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired Village Assistant sought terminal benefits withheld due to pending higher-grade proposal. Court directed Land Revenue Commissioner to decide the higher-grade application within 6 weeks, after which terminal benefits must be settled promptly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Land Revenue Commissioner to decide higher-grade application within 6 weeks; terminal benefits to be settled within 6 weeks thereafter.

S.Money K Vs the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha — 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 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 2189 of 2010(W)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

S.MONEY.K, VILLAGE ASSISTANT (RETIRED), THACHUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTAM, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., IDUKKI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE SMT.MANJU RAJAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WPC NO.2189/10

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 19.7.2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY UNDER SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶23

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 30.12.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA DT 31.8.2007.

¶25

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF CHELLAN DT 18.8.06 OF THODUPUZHA SUB TREASURY.

¶26

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2009.

¶27

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 5.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2189 OF 2010 (W)

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 1^st day of July, 2010

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner retired from Revenue Service as a Village Assistant on 31/8/07. His contention is that DCRG and such other benefits are not paid. It is therefore, the writ petition has been filed.

¶36

The justification offered by the learned Government Pleader is that it is only on 21/5/2009 that the petitioner has made an application for higher grade. It is stated that a proposal for granting him higher grade was already made and that the same is pending consideration of the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is also stated that probation of the petitioner as Village Assistant was declared only on 5/5/2009 w.e.f. 21/1/1999. These are the two reasons stated for the delay in the non payment of the pensionary benefits.

¶37

Now that the proposal for granting higher grade to the petitioner is pending, I feel, before the settlement of the terminal benefits, the Land Revenue Commissioner should decide on the said proposal. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Land

¶38

WPC No. 2189/10

¶39

:2 :

¶40

Revenue Commissioner to decide on the grant of higher grade to the petitioner, which decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that once a decision is taken in the matter as directed above, the terminal benefits due to the petitioner shall be settled, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks thereafter.

¶41

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before

¶42

the Land Revenue Commissioner and the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶45

S.Money K v. the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Money K v. the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha

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

T.a.Radhamani Vs U.K.S.Chauhan

Kishore Kumar M.P. Vs K.Jayakumar I.A.S.

Special Tahsildar (La), Gcda Vs P.C.Mathew

Indian National Anganwadi Employees Fed Vs Usha Titus

M.Radha Vs the State of Kerala

K.v.Balakrishnan & Others Vs State of Kerala