Allowed

N.Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jun 2010WP(C)/2787/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, retired Village Officer, filed writ petition seeking full terminal benefits after initial payment of only provisional pension due to prior suspension. Court held that post-acquittal and regularization of suspension, respondents must calculate and disburse all due benefits including promotion arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directs 3rd respondent to work out and disburse all terminal and other benefits due to petitioner including promotion benefits within three months.

N.Sasidharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala — 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

TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 2787 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

B.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VILLAGE OFFICER (RETIRED FROM NATTAKOM VILLAGE OFFICE) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT REVATHY, CO-OPERATIE COLONY, NARYAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶16

5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (KERALA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.2787/2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S3-50577/2001 DTD. 6.10.2001.

¶23

P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/8305/03 DTD. 6.9.2003 ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶24

P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 13.5.2008 IN CC. NO.37/2003 BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPEPCIAL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR-E5-101/2002 DTD. 24.10.2002.

¶26

P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P3/PEN-A/835/OG/06-07 DTD. 26.3.2007 REPRESENTATION ON 19.6.2008.

¶27

P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 19.6.2008.

¶28

P7:- COPY OF THE PENSION PAPERS WERE ACKNOWLEDGE BY THE TAHSILDAR KOTTAYAM ON 20.6.2008.

¶29

P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LA3/HBA/I/BOR-66302/749 DTD. 14.10.2009.

¶30

P9:- COPY OF THE S3-50577/2001-(I) DTD. 20.2.2010.

¶31

P10:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION ON 9.3.2010.

¶32

P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S3-50577/2001-(I) DTD. 25.3.2010.

¶33

P12:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P3/PEN.A/835/G/06-07/510 DTD. 24.3.2010.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.2787 of 2010 (W)

¶39

Dated, this the 8^th day of June, 2010

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The petitioner retired from service as a Village Officer from Nattakom Village Office on 28/02/2006. In this writ petition his grievance is regarding withholding of his terminal benefits and certain other benefits.

¶42

It would appear that while serving as Village Officer in Pathanapuram Village Office, following his involvement in a vigilance case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 06/10/2001 and was reinstated only on 06/09/2003. It is thereafter that the petitioner retired from service on 28/02/2006.

¶43

Subsequent to his retirement, by Ext.P3 judgment rendered on 13/05/2008 in C.C.No.37/03, in which he was an accused, the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram acquitted the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner was paid only provisional pension and he approached this Court for disbursement of the entire benefits. In the statement

¶44

WP(C) No.2787/2010

¶45

-2-

¶46

filed, the 3^rd respondent has stated that in view of the acquittal of the petitioner from the vigilance case, full pensionary benefits can be sanctioned to the petitioner. According to him, prior to sanctioning of these benefits, his suspension period has to be regularized, pay has to be fixed from 2001 onwards, and recasting of leave account has to be completed. It is stated that since the suspension occurred in Kollam District, service book of the petitioner has already been forwarded to the District Collector, Kollam for regularizing suspension period and that on receipt of the service book from the District Collector, Kollam further proceedings for sanctioning his pensionary benefits will be taken from his Office.

¶47

Thereafter the petitioner has produced Ext.P11, the proceedings dated 25/03/2010 of the District Collector, Kollam. By this proceedings, the District Collector has regularized the suspension period of the petitioner and has ordered that the period will be treated as duty for all purposes. Now that the suspension period has been regularized by the District Collector, Kollam by Ext.P11 proceedings, necessarily the 3^rd respondent has to take action for disbursing the entire terminal benefits that are due to the petitioner. While doing so, the 3^rd respondent should also duly take into account Ext.P4 promotion order, promoting the petitioner as

¶48

WP(C) No.2787/2010

¶49

-3-

¶50

Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 24/10/2002, the benefit of which was not extended on account of the fact that he was under suspension at that time.

¶51

Therefore, in the light of the above, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions :-

¶52

That the 3^rd respondent shall work out the terminal benefits and all other benefits that are due to the petitioner duly taking into account Ext.P4 promotion order referred to above and Ext.P11 proceedings

¶53

of the District Collector, Kollam. The benefit due to the petitioner shall be worked out as above and disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.

¶54

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3^rd respondent for compliance.

¶55

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

¶58

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY//

¶59

PA TO JUDGE.

N.Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala

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 Dr.Smithamol P.S. & 26 Others

Stanly George Vs Kpsc

Philomina Vs the Managing Director, Kerala Automobile

P.Bernad Vs P.Mani & Another

Ansar Hussain & Anr. Vs the Managing Director,Ksavrc & Ors.

P.Babu Vs State of Kerala and Another