Dismissed

C.Noorudeenkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2011WP(C)/16241/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting his request to regularize his service as Block Development Officer and grant corresponding pensionary benefits. The court examined the record and found no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayers for quashing the order and regularizing service were dismissed.

C.Noorudeenkutty 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 B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 16241 of 2005(H)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

C.NOORUDEEN KUTTY, (RTD.SPECIAL GRADE SENIOR CO-OEPRATIVE INSPECTOR/BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER), POOYAPPALLIL HOUSE, S.R.P.MARKET P.O. KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶11

SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.M.V.RAAVEE MOL

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.VIJULAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 16241 of 2005(H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1. COPY OF G.O. RT. 391/87/RDD DT. 11.2.1987

¶22

EXT.P2. COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 13.4.87 OF THE PETITIONER

¶23

EXT.P3. COPY OF G.O (RT) NO.825/87/RDD DT. 24.6.1987

¶24

EXT.P4. COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DT. 4.12.04.

¶25

EXT.P5. COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1009/05 (T) DT, 11.1.05 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶26

EXT.P6. COPY OF LETTER NO.2056/EA2/2005/LSGD DT. 20.4.05 OF UNDER SECRETARY, L.S.G. (RD-EA) DEPT.

¶27

EXT.P7. COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2.5.2005.

¶28

EXT.P8. COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O. RT NO.1932/2005/LSGD DT. 12.5.05.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16241 of 2005

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2011.

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶40

following prayers:

¶41

Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 and quash the same.

¶42

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondent to regularise the petitioner's service as Block Development Officer and grant him pensionary benefits accordingly without any further delay.

¶43

The petitioner who was working as Senior Co-Operative Inspector was posted on deputation as the Secretary of Chavara Coconut Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. No. 4291. The petitioner was provisionally promoted as B.D.O as per order dated 11.02.1987 of the Government and he was allowed to continue on other duty in the Co-Operative Department. As per Ext.P3 order dated 24.06.1987, the petitioner was reverted to

¶44

the Community Development Department. Accordingly, the Commissioner for Rural Development Department posted the petitioner as B.D.O., Karunagappally. While so, the petitioner

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 16241/2005

¶46

-:2:-

¶47

was placed under suspension on the basis of certain allegations against him. While under suspension, he retired from service on 30.04.1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was promoted and posted as B.D.O and retired from service, pensionary benefits were not sanctioned and granted to him treating him as B.D.O. The petitioner submitted a representation before the Government requesting to regularise his service as B.D.O and grant him pensionary benefits. The Government vide Ext.P8 order dated 12.05.2005 rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is the said order which is assailed in this writ petition.

¶48

I have perused the impugned order under Ext.P8. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶49

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 16241/2005

¶52

-:3:-

¶53

B.P. RAY, J.

¶54

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 16241/2005

¶56

-:4:-

¶57

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011.

¶58

JUDGMENT

C.Noorudeenkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Noorudeenkutty 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

Sealord Hotel Pvt.Limited Vs Indian Performing Right Society Ltd.

M/S.Steel Complex Limited Vs the Regional Provident Commissioner, Kzd

M/S. Steel Complex Ltd. Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commnr.

M.v.Chandrasekhara Warrier Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Devicolam Distilleries Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Casino Hotels Ltd. Vs T.P.Sivadasan Acs