Allowed

C.Viswanathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2011WP(C)/1020/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an order that unilaterally removed previously granted retirement benefits effective from a later date without notice or hearing to the retired petitioners, directing a reconsideration within three months affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Ext.P6 order dated 6.1.2005 was quashed, the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the matter within three months after hearing the petitioners.

C.Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1020 of 2006(U)

PETITIONER(S):

C. VISWANATHAN, RADIOGRAPHER (SENIOR GRADE)(RETD.), REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA, TC.7/158, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-11.

¶10

P. SEETHA, RADIOGRAPHER (SENIOR GRADE) (RETD.), REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA, TC.7/158, NEERAZHI LANE, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-11.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶12

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, P.O. BOX NO.2417, MEDICAL COLLEGE COMPLEX, TRIVANDRUM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶17

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON 11/10/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 1020 of 2006(U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS :-

¶22

EXT.P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.24436/E2/86/MCT DATED 13-10-96 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 :	TRIE CP[U PF PRDER MP/1046/2001/ADMN.1/RCC DATED 28-03-2001 IDDUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 :	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2339/ADMN.1/2003/RCC DATED 12-11-2003.
EXT.P4 :	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15-03-2005 IN W.P(C) 40090/2003 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P5 :	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.28/ADMN.1/2005/RCC DATED 03-06-2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 :	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.28/ADMN.1/2005/RCC DATED 06-12-2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk.

S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ==================

¶28

W.P.(C).No. 1020 of 2006

¶29

==================

¶30

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T

¶31

The facts of this writ petition are evident from Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C).No.40090/2003 filed by the petitioners and three others.

¶32

The said judgment reads thus;

¶33

“Petitioners five in number are Radiographers working in the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. A Division Bench of this Court in Exhibit P8 judgment in O.P.No. 12893/01 dealing with inter se claims of one Sadasivan Nair as petitioner and Smt.V.Sheela and two others as party respondents took note of G.O(Rt)No.392/86/H &FWD dt. 6.2.1987, particularly the fact that “the staff of the Directorate of Medical Education opting for the Regional Cancer Centre were categorically promised that their total service in the Medical Education Directorate would be counted for fixation of pay and seniority, in the service in the Regional cancer Centre” and it was in view of the said promise contained in the above mentioned Government Order that” the petitioner in that original petition had submitted his option for transfer to the Regional Cancer Centre and such option was accepted by the Government and he was transferred to the Regional Cancer Centre.” The Division Bench held that after more than a decade the Government cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily deny such persons the benefit of their service as Radiographer for the purpose seniority and that the Government order impugned in that case was illegal.

¶34

Petitioners herein have approached the first respondent requesting to grant them promotion to the post of Technical Officer taking into account their service in the Regional Cancer Centre as also the Medical Education Directorate in that light of the observations made by the Division Bench in Exhibit P8 judgment. Exhibit P10 is a copy of the representation filed by the 2^nd petitioner. It is submitted that similar representations have been filed by other petitioners as well.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the W.P. (C). itself can be disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P10 and similar representations submitted before the said respondent by the petitioners herein and to take appropriate decision thereon. Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submits that before passing orders on Exhibit P10, those respondents may be afforded an opportunity of being heard.

¶36

Having regard to the above submissions, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P10 representation and similar representations filed by the other petitioners and to pass orders in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Director of the first respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners and

¶37

w.p.c.1020/06 - : 2 :-

¶38

respondents 3 to 5 so as to afford an opportunity of being heard before taking final decision as directed above.”

¶39

Pursuant to the direction in that judgment, by Ext.P5 order dated 3.6.2005, the 2^nd respondent granted the petitioners benefits, which, according to them, are legally due to them. But, later on, by Ext.P6 order dated 6.1.2005, the benefits were taken away assigning a later date for benefits applicable to the petitioners. That is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶40

One of the contentions raised in this writ petition is that Ext.P6 order unilaterally changing the date of effect of re-designation of the petitioners is without any notice or hearing to the petitioners. It is not disputed before me that before passing Ext.P6 order, the petitioners were not given a notice or hearing. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 order is liable to be quashed. I do so. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While dong so, I note the fact that the petitioners have already retired from service. If ultimately the petitioners' claims are allowed, the petitioners would be entitled to all consequential monetary benefits flowing therefrom.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

sdk+

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

C.Viswanathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Viswanathan 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

K.Mukesh Vs M.Sivasankar

P.K.Muraleedharan Kartha Vs C.Thampi Paul

Sreenivasan K. and Another Vs the Authorised Officer and Another

Max Meditech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Tomy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

The Project Manager,Khadi & Village Indu Vs K.R.Peter & Anr.