Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Ayyappan

Kerala HC2 Feb 2011RP/34/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was disposed of after the administration issued an order correcting the petitioner's designation and revising his pension following a mistake in the Pension Payment Order. The Court dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to pursue the difference in pay quantum in appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is directed to work out remedy regarding scale of pay in appropriate proceedings. Review petition disposed of.

State of Kerala Vs Ayyappan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 34 of 2011(J)

¶6

-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29338/2009 Dated 05/07/2010

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1-3

¶8

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER

¶14

¶15

AYYAPPAN P., RETD., FORESTER, THENEZHATHU PARAMBIL, NORTH GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-686141.

¶16

ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶19

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

¶20

R.P.NO.34/2011 IN W.P.(C) NO.29338 OF 2009(J)

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2011

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 5^th July, 2010, on the basis that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Wild Life Warden. On that basis it was held that he will be entitled to have his pension paid on the corresponding revised scale of `. 11070-18450.

¶25

In this review petition, it is pointed out that the designation shown in the writ petition was on account of the mistake that was committed in the Pension Payment Order and that the petitioner actually retired from the post of Forester (Higher Grade) and that the scale of pay as applicable to that post has to be the basis for pension. The factual correctness of the averment to the extent that there was a mistake in the designation is not disputed by the petitioner also.

¶26

It is now seen that realizing the mistake, to correct the designation and scale of pay Annexure-A3 notice was issued to the petitioner, to which petitioner filed Ext.R1(a) reply also. Considering Ext.R1(a), Annexure-A5 order was issued correcting

¶27

RP.No.34 /2011

¶28

:2 :

¶29

the designation and also revising the pension. As far as the scale of pay indicated in Annexure-A5 is concerned petitioner has a case that he is entitled to have the scale of pay as directed in the judgment.

¶30

Now that Annexure-A5 order has been issued, if the petitioner has such a case petitioner will have to work out his remedies in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his above claim in appropriate proceedings, this review petition is disposed of.

¶31

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶32

vi/

State of Kerala v. Ayyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Ayyappan

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

Priya K.B. Vs P.Jayakumar

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and 3 Others Vs Shaji Mathew and Others

Ninan Varghese Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Basil.T.K Vs T.P.Senkumar

Suresh.K. Vs Manoj

M.P.Rappai Vs Thomas Joseph