Disposed

J.Daniel Kutty v. Accountant General

Kerala HC1 Feb 2010WP(C)/833/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed a writ petition by a peon seeking voluntary retirement. The court held that the delay in considering the application due to pending pay fixation proceedings was not a valid excuse. It directed the appointing authority to dispose of the application within one month without prejudicing pending loss of pay proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement filed on 23.11.09 within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.

J.Daniel Kutty Vs Accountant General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 833 of 2010(D)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

J.DANIAL KUTTY, PEON, DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) NO. 833 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a peon working in the office of the 3^rd respondent. As per Ext.P4 he was placed under orders of transfer to Government V.H.S.S Chunakkara. The grievance of the petitioner is that even prior to the issuance of Ext. P4 order of transfer, he filed an application for permitting him to retire voluntary, on 23.11.09. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had completed the required period of service for the purpose of seeking voluntary retirement prior to 23.11.2009. The said application was not so far been considered by the appointing authority on the ground that while sanctioning 23 years' grade to the petitioner with effect from 1.11.03, the period of leave without allowances was erroneously reckoned and as a consequence one increment from 1.11.03 was granted to him and his

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) NO. 833 OF 2010

¶25

pay was fixed at Rs.4,270/-. According to the respondents he was eligible only for a fixation of pay at Rs.4,190/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050-5230/-.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement is correct. At the same time, it is submitted that the said application was rejected by the 2^nd respondent on the ground of wrong fixation of pay at the time of granting 23 years' grade to the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P2 that against the objection of wrong fixation of pay by reckoning the period of leave without allowances while granting the 23 years grade he has submitted his explanation. Admittedly no order was passed there on after taking in to account his explanation made as per Ext.P2. However, I am of the opinion that pendency of that proceedings cannot be a reason for not considering the application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement in accordance with law by the appointing authority, of course, without prejudice

¶27

W.P.(C) NO. 833 OF 2010 3

¶28

to the right to continue with the steps taken based on Ext.P1. In this circumstance, there shall be a direction to

¶29

the, 3^rd respondent, the appointing authority of the petitioner, to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 23.11.09 for voluntary retirement in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the concerned authorities for continuing with the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P1. In that regard, it will only appropriate for the respondents concerned to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P2 and pass orders there on, expeditiously.

¶30

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

¶32

mns

J.Daniel Kutty v. Accountant General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Daniel Kutty v. Accountant General

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.Prasad Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

Remesan M.K. Vs State of Kerala & Others

Jagadish K.N. Vs Hmt Ltd.

John Benson J. Vs State and Others

Dr.N.C.Rajan Vs the Director of Treasuries and Others