Partly allowed

P.G.Satheedevi and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC29 Jul 2010WP(C)/9645/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent Corporation to grant pay revision benefits to the first petitioner within six weeks. Regarding her delayed promotion to Senior Superintendent, the Court directed the Corporation to consider her claim for retrospective effect within eight weeks of receiving a representation.

What did the court decide?

Direct the first petitioner: (i) Receive pay revision benefit within six weeks; (ii) File representation on promotion for decision within eight weeks.

P.G.Satheedevi and Another 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 THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 9645 of 2008(W)

¶5

------------------------PETITIONER(S): --------------1. P.G.SATHEEDEVI, JR.SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM. RESIDING AT OTHALAMPARAMBIL, VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶6

N.MAYA DEVI, JR.SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT TC 50/961, TRWA - 283, THALIYAL, KARAMANA (PO), TRIVANDRUM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LTD., P.B.NO.523, TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR POST, PIN - 680 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LTD., P.B.NO.523, TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR POST, PIN - 680 020.

¶10

*ADDL.R4 M.S.RENGAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERLA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R5 P.ASOKAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LTD., HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 22/09/2008 IN I.A.NO.11882/08.

¶11

ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN FOR ADDL.R4 & 5 MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSDC FOR SC/ST

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WPC NO.9645/2008 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

P1 : COPY OF REVISED SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY R2 DATED 12/09/2003. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (C) 32627/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶16

P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01/10/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R3.

¶17

P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 31/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R3 THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL.

¶18

P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04/12/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE R3.

¶19

P6 : COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE NO.G.O.(MS) NO.47/2007/SC STDD DATED 25/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. OF KERALA.

¶20

P7 : COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION AS FAR AS SMT.DEVAKI IS CONCERNED IN PURSUANCE TO EXT.P6 ORDER DATED 06/11/2007.

¶21

P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 05/12/2007.

¶22

P9 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 24/12/2007.

¶23

P10 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22/01/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R3.

¶24

P11 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22/01/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE R3.

¶25

P12 : COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DATED 08/02/2008 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

P13 : COPY OF STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY DATED 08/02/2008 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶27

P14 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 16/01/2008 TO 1ST PETITIONER.

¶28

P15 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/04/2007 ISSUED BY R3 TO 1ST PETITIONER.

¶29

P16 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/04/2007 ISSUED BY R3 TO 2ND PETITIONER.

¶30

P17 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2388/05 DATED 05/03/2010.

¶31

P18 : COPY OF ORDER NO.11251/A2/2000 DATED 25/06/2010.

¶32

P19 : COPY OF ORDER NO.1949/A2/98 DATED 09/07/2010.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶34

ANNEXURE R3(a) : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 24/03/2008 IN WP(C) NO.9500/2008. //TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.9645 of 2008 (W)

¶39

Dated, this the 29^th day of July, 2010

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

Case of the 1^st petitioner alone was argued.

¶42

In this writ petition there are two grievances for the 1^st

¶43

petitioner. First one is that the benefit of Ext.P6 pay revision order

¶44

has not been given to her. The second one is that her promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent is inordinately delayed.

¶45

Insofar as the benefit of Ext.P6 pay revision order is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that though pay revision benefits as contemplated in the said order have been extended to all eligible employees of the respondent Corporation, she has not been given the said benefit.

¶46

There is no explanation forthcoming in the statement filed by the respondent Corporation answering this grievance. In view of this, it is directed that if the benefit of pay revision admissible to the petitioner has not been extended so far, the benefits due shall be extended to her within six weeks of production

¶47

WP(C) No.9645/2008

¶48

-2-

¶49

of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

The other grievance of the 1^st petitioner is regarding promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent. It is now submitted that by Exts.P18 & P19 the 1^st petitioner has been promoted to the post of Accounts Officer. The case of the 1^st petitioner is that this promotion was inordinately delayed and that therefore she is entitled to have it with retrospective effect from 01/07/2007, when consequent on the retirement of her immediate senior, vacancy is alleged to have arisen. In the facts as stated by the 1^st petitioner, I feel the respondent Corporation should be directed to consider this claim and to take a decision in this behalf.

¶51

Having regard to the above, I direct that it will be open to the 1^st petitioner to file a representation in this behalf to the 2^nd respondent, in which event, it is directed that the 2^nd respondent will consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks thereafter.

¶52

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶54

P.G.Satheedevi and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Satheedevi and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

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 C.K.Johny

Pankajakasthuri Ayurveda Medical College Vs Govt of India and Ors.

N.Bahuleyan Unni Vs Union of India

K.P.Cleetus Vs Commissioner,Land REVENUE,TRIVANDRUM150.

Korah K.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Dr.T.a.Habeeb Vs State of Kerala & Another