Disposed

B.Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Apr 2011WP(C)/11101/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired Deputy Director suspended from service, challenged the suspension in a writ petition. The High Court declined to quash the suspension immediately but directed the respondent to complete disciplinary proceedings expeditiously. The court ordered retirement benefits disbursement and substantive relief within three months, and subsistence allowance payment within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direct suspension stay denied; disciplinary proceedings to conclude in 3 months; pension/benefits disbursed in 2 months thereafter; subsistence allowance paid in 1 month.

B.Vijayan 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 THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 11101 of 2011(K)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S): --------------B.VIJAYAN, S/O. BALAN, AGED 55 YEARS, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR SRI.S.ASWAKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

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

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶11

ADV.MR. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVT. PLEADER.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶14

W.P.(C) No. 11101 OF 2011

¶15

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2011

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner retired from service as Deputy Director of

¶18

Survey in the services of the Government of Kerala on 31.3.2011. While in service, the petitioner was suspended from service. He was served with Ext.P1 memo of charges and statement of allegations dated 11.11.2010. It is after the same, the petitioner has been suspended. The petitioner now challenges the suspension. The petitioner's prayer for review of the suspension has been rejected by Ext.P9 order. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶19

“i) Issue a Writ of certiorari order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P1 P3 and P8 and quash the same as against the petitioner;

¶20

ii) issue a writ of mandamus order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the pensionary benefits including DCRG as expeditiously as possible to the petitioner; iii) issue such other equitable reliefs including cost and interim order as prayed for in the course of the proceedings.”

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I

¶22

W.P.(C)No.11101/11

¶23

¶24

am not inclined to interfere with the suspension at present. But, I am of opinion that the respondent should complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously.

¶25

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to see that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuing Ext.P1 charge memo shall be completed and taken to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, in accordance with the decision in the disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed within two months thereafter. If the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶27

acd

¶28

W.P.(C)No.11101/11 3

¶29

W.P.(C)No.11101/11 4

B.Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Vijayan 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

Sayyed Ulamam Sha Vs Cyril Vimal Mendez

Gopalakrishnan Assari.N and Others Vs Sajeeb Kumar Padjoshi

Dr.M.K.Sushama Vs the Accountant General

Abdul Jaleel Vs Director of Health Services

Patricia Jesudasan Vs the General Manager

Ashok Kumar Vs a.N.Ramesh and Others