Allowed

V.P.Varghese v. the State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC8 Dec 2011WP(C)/10395/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking pensionary benefits and commutation value. The petitioner was retired with benefits withheld due to pending disciplinary proceedings but later acquitted in vigilance cases. The court directed the respondents to disburse the remaining retirement benefits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to disburse retirement benefits and commutation value within two months.

V.P.Varghese Vs the State of Kerala & Others — 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 THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 10395 of 2006(K)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

V.P. VARGHESE, S/O.PAILY, AGED 57 YEARS, VADAKKE NELLIKUZHY, PAZHOOR EAST, PIRAVOM-686 664 (SECRETARY (RETD), KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT & WELFARE SOCIETY M.G. ROAD, TRIVANDRUM).

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.K.E.HAMZA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

4. THE SECRETARY, KERALA RURAL EMPLOYMENT

¶16

& WELFARE SOCIETY, M.G.ROAD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

5. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, PIRAVOM-686 664.

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOBLE MATHEW.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 10395 of 2006(K)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-33623/03 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.185/2002/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P4	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P-01/PEN.A/685/BB/03-04/1036 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.803/2002/FIN. OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.153/2011/VIG. OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2303/2011/LSGD OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN

W.P.(C)NO. 10395 OF 2006

¶33

- - - - Dated this the 8^th day of December 2011

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner retired from service on 31/01/2004 while working in the cadre of Joint Director of Panchayats. The petitioner's grievances in this writ petition is that, retirement benefits due to the petitioner are not settled on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending. According to the petitioner, disciplinary action was commenced a decade before and the same has not culminated in any punishment. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶36

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to grant the entire pensionary benefits of the petitioner forthwith along with penal interest.

¶37

b. Direct the respondents to disburse commutation value of pension to the petitioner forthwith.”

¶38

In the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, the stand taken is that vigilance cases are pending against the petitioner and as per Government orders on the subject, if vigilance cases are pending before courts, only provisional pension can be paid, which has already been paid to the petitioner. Along with I.A.No.19242 of 2011, the petitioner has produced Ext.P8 order dated 07/10/2011 of the Government, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner has been acquitted

¶39

¶40

from vigilance case and that the suspension period of the petitioner was regularized as duty for all purposes.

¶41

In the above circumstances, there cannot be any further impediment for disbursal of the retirement benefits due to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that retirement benefits due to the petitioner are disbursed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶43

STU

¶44

¶45

V.P.Varghese v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Varghese v. the State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhamani Amma Vs Leenamma

R.Bijoy Vs State of Kerala

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.,Konni P.O.,Pta. Vs Pta.Dist.Thottam Thozhilali Union,Hms(Ho

The Commissioner (Hr & Ce) & Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. Vs Pathanamthitta District Thottam

K.M.Kabeer Vs Corporation of Cochin