Disposed

G.Seetha v. District Supply Officer

Kerala HC30 Nov 2011WP(C)/12216/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a government employee, sought a writ to quash a demand letter for differential costs, citing conflicting claims on payments made and receivable. The court directed the office to reconcile claims within four weeks and issue a fresh demand if necessary before any recovery.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconcile conflicting claims, quantify dues, and issue a fresh demand within four weeks.

G.Seetha Vs District Supply Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 12216 of 2007(D)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

G.SEETHA, W/O. CHANDRAN, AWD NO.9, MARARIKULAM, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

2. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHERTHALA.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY. TRIVANDRUM

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WPC. NO.12216/2007

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1:COPY OF THE CHART PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P2:COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.CS4.609/07 DATED 08-03-07

¶24

P3:COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 22-03-07

¶25

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-03-07 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2^nd RESPNDENT

¶26

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 12216 OF 2007

¶32

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2011

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioner has been appointed as AWD No.9 at Mararikulam in Cherthala Taluk. In this writ petition she is seeking to quash Ext.P2, a communication issued by the first respondent demanding an amount of Rs.1,93,979/towards Differential Cost due from the petitioner. According to the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,43,351.96 is already due to her and that on receipt of Ext.P2, reiterating her claims and disputing Ext.P2, she had filed Ext.P3 before the first respondent. When Ext.P3 is pending, apprehending coercive steps, this writ petition was filed and this court has passed an interim order of stay which is continuing even now.

¶35

Respondents have filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, out of Rs.2,43,351.96/-, except Rs.95,283.66/- rest of the claim of the petitioner

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 12216 OF 2007 :2 :

¶37

have already been satisfied and the dates on which the amounts have been received by the petitioner are also mentioned in the affidavit. However the counter affidavit does not deal with the claim of the petitioner regarding the aforesaid Rs.95,283.66. Further, out of Rs.1,93,979/mentioned in Ext.P2, Rs.67,765/- has already been paid by the petitioner.

¶38

Therefore I direct that, on receipt of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent will reconcile the conflicting claims made by himself and the also by the petitioner, quantify if any amount is due from the petitioner and issue a fresh demand to her. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

If any amount is due from the petitioner, the petitioner will pay the same within four weeks thereafter.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/[true copy]

¶42

P.S. to Judge

G.Seetha v. District Supply Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Seetha v. District Supply Officer

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

M.G.Maneesh Vs Shri.Mazood Hussain

Abdul Khader Sharafudheen Vs the Director Public Instructions and Ors.

Ammal Kurien Vs State of Kerala

M.I.Baby Vs K.Jayakumar

Krishnan Nair Vs the Superintendent of Surveys

P.Kumaran and Another Vs Divisional Forest Officer,Mannarkkad