Allowed

V.K.Muzamil and Another v. K.S.E.Board and Another

Kerala HC2 Aug 2011RP/476/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench removed a condition requiring petitioners to furnish a guarantee for gratuity because they withdrew a pending Supreme Court appeal. The Single Judge set aside this condition and directed the Electricity Board to pay the gratuity within one month upon receiving a copy of this order.

What did the court decide?

The condition of furnishing a guarantee imposed earlier was lifted; the Electricity Board is directed to pay gratuity within one month.

V.K.Muzamil and Another Vs K.S.E.Board and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

RP.No. 476 of 2010()

¶6

-------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.887/2009 Dated 06/07/2009

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1&2:

¶8

¶9

V.K.MUZAMIL, S/O.LATE V.P.KUNHUMOIDEEN, VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, POST MANGALAM, LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK.

¶10

C.K.RADHAMANI, 'USHUS', POST KANIPAYYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & 3RD RESPONDENT:

¶13

¶14

THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶16

ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

ANNEXURE A1: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN RP NO.440/2009 IN W.A. NO.439/2009 DT.19.3.2010.

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶23

R.P. No.476 of 2010 in Writ Appeal No.887 of 2009

¶24

.................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶27

Review Petition is filed by respondents in the Writ Appeal in whose favour the learned Single Judge ordered payment of gratuity by the K.S.E.B. Even though Division Bench also agreed with the learned Single Judge in regard to entitlement of review petitioners to receive gratuity, the review petitioners were ordered to furnish guarantee for receiving the gratuity because of the pendency of SLP before the Supreme Court in another matter. Counsel for the petitioners now submitted that K.S.E.B. has issued orders on 24.5.2011 declaring eligibility of employees to receive gratuity. Consequently they have withdrawn SLP pending before the Supreme Court. In view of this development, we allow the Review Petition by lifting the condition imposed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal judgment for release of gratuity to the review petitioners. Consequently the

¶28

¶29

Electricity Board is directed to give gratuity to the review petitioners in terms of their subsequent order dated 24.5.2011 within a period of one

¶30

month from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶31

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶32

P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge

¶33

pms

V.K.Muzamil and Another v. K.S.E.Board and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Muzamil and Another v. K.S.E.Board and Another

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

Saraswathi Amma Vs the Secretary, Velimon Service Co-Op.Ban

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam. Vs M/S.Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.,Kottayam.

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin Vs Tata Ceramics Ltd., Cochin

Commissioner of Income Tax,Kottayam Vs T.O.Abraham, Thiruvalla

M.P.Ibrahimkutty Vs State of Kerala

The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committe Vs Guruvayur Devaswom Employees' Associatio