Allowed

P.v.Jose v. Executive Engineer & Another

Kerala HC19 Jul 2011WP(C)/10248/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition by a Government Pleader seeking payment of his outstanding remuneration. The court held that since the specific amount claimed was undisputed, it ordered the respondents to finalize proceedings and disburse the funds within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to finalize proceedings, ensure available funds, and disburse the claimed amount to the petitioner within two months.

P.v.Jose Vs Executive Engineer & Another — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10248 of 2009(A)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

P.V.JOSE, ADVOCATE, PARAYIL HOUSE, KELAKAM, THALASSERY TALUK,

¶10

KANNUR DT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, N.H.DIVISION, KANNUR.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, N.H.DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 10248 of 2009(A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.2.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶22

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A2-390/05 DATED 21.02.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶25

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.10248 OF 2009

¶27

......................................................................... Dated this the 19^th July , 2011

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The sad plight of a learned Government Pleader in getting his remuneration, who represented the State during the years 2001-06, conducting cases without any demur, is highlighted in this writ petition.

¶30

The petitioner, having been appointed as Government

¶31

Pleader, has been conducting cases before the various Courts at Thalassery, representing the State and such other authorities, as required. On completion of tenure, he submitted bills in respect of the outstanding amounts pending towards Pleader's fee; more particularly as given in Ext.P1 claim dated 05.02.20099. On receipt of the said letter, the same was replied by the first respondent, as per Ext.P2 dated 21.02.2009, stating that it was for the Ministry of Surface Transport and Highways to sanction and allot funds to entertain the claims in respect of the land

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.10248 OF 2009

¶34

acquisition work of Thalassery-Mahi Byepass. It is also stated therein that no funds were available for the time being under the said work; simultaneously pointing out that revised estimate of the above land acquisition work including Pleaders' fee had been submitted to the Chief Engineer for necessary action and that the Chief Engineer was also requested for allotment of funds for settlement of the claims. It was assured therein that action would be taken as and when funds were allocated as above. The petitioner is constrained to approach this Court as nothing transpired in positive, despite the assurance.

¶35

The writ petition was admitted way back in 2009, ordering notice by speed post. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing before this Court on 07.08.2009 that the Central Government is to be included in the party array, the petitioner moved this Court by filing I.A.No.1545 of 2011 to implead the concerned Ministry of the Central Government, which was allowed and notice was issued to the said additional respondent, who has also been duly served. In spite of

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.10248 OF 2009

¶38

completion of service of notice and pendency of matter for more than two years, no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents with regard to the grievance sought to be redressed by the petitioner. It also remains a fact that the factual particulars having not been chosen to be disputed, the amount sought to be released to the petitioner vide Ext.P1 calculation statement is the actual amount to be paid to the petitioner.

¶39

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the amount for the period upto March 2004 has already been disbursed to the petitioner. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation given in Ext.P1 is in respect of the subsequent period, which is stated as outstanding, after the payment effected upto the period March, 2004. In any view of the matter, the specific pleadings and the prayers have not been chosen to be controverted by any of the respondents. The Apex Court had made it clear, as per the decision reported in 2000(1)SCC 679 (Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. ) that undisputed pleadings can be treated as admission and by virtue of the mandate under Section 58 of

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.10248 OF 2009

¶42

the Indian Evidence Act, the admitted facts need not be proved.

¶43

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition. The respondents are directed to finalise the proceedings and make available necessary funds, so as to satisfy the claim of the petitioner to the extent payable and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to take further steps, if any portion of the amount actually due is not disbursed, contrary to the claim. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost.

¶44

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶45

P.v.Jose v. Executive Engineer & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Jose v. Executive Engineer & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jobby Thomas Vs Mini Antony,District Collector,Kottayam

K.M.Ramani Vs G.Vijayakumar

Kunhiraman and Others Vs C.J.Joseph and Others

Saji C.P. Vs Union of India

Abraham Mathai Vs Kerala State Construction Corporation

Rangan.K.R. Vs State of Kerala & Another