Disposed

K.G.Rugmani Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC3 Nov 2011WP(C)/20309/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court grants liberty to petitioner to file a proper application for pension with the second respondent. Court directs it to consider the claim under relevant law and Board orders expeditiously. Petition disposed pending filing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner set at liberty to file proper application within two weeks for consideration by the 2nd respondent within two months.

K.G.Rugmani Amma Vs Kerala State Electricity… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 20309 of 2011(K)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

K.G.RUGMANI AMMA, RUGMANI NIVAS,

¶10

VELIYANAD P.O., PEPPATHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. DR. K.P.SATHEESAN MR. M.R.JAYAPRASAD MR. P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) MR. MATHEW SUNNY MR. ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATOOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATOOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, GENERATION CIRCLE, MEENCUT, CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN 685 565.

¶17

THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶18

ADV. MR. K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CIVIL SURGEON AND MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, ADIMALI, DATED 02.06.1984 EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.1984 EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CIVIL MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION SENGULAM DATED 03.12.1984 EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.1984 EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.05.1985 EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.1994 EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 20.12.2010 EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.03.2011

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶26

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶27

¶28

W.P (C) No. 20309 of 2011

¶29

¶30

Dated, this the 3^rd day of November, 2011

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner, who is the widow of a former employee of the respondent Board, has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the second respondent to sanction invalid pension to the petitioner's husband from the date of retirement till the date of death i.e. from 02.06.1984 till 20.01.1986 and to grant family pension to the petitioner considering 22 years of service rendered by the petitioner's husband.

¶33

The second respondent has counter affidavit, wherein it is contended in paragraph 5 as follows:

¶34

5. It is submitted that, t the time, the petitioner's husband applied for invalid retirement, there was no provision for granting of pension for such retirees. Later, the Board vide B.O. No. 1093/91 (PS1 2004/91) dated 26.10.1991 had adopted the Government Orders, sanctioning minimum pension/family pension to all the employees in the non-pensionable work establishment service and who are allowed to continue in service up to the age of 60, provided that they were in service as on 01.11.1966 and later Sri.Gopinathan Nair, Electrician Grade II entered in service on 25.10.1967 and he retired on invalid ground on 02.06.1984 F.N. ie. he is entered in service after the said date 01.11.1966. Hence, the request for family pension

¶35

W.P. (C) No. 20309 of 2011

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

can be considered subject to the provisions in the Government Order as adopted by the Board Order dated 27.08.1991.

¶38

The learned standing counsel for the Board submits that the objection raised from the part of the second respondent is that no proper application is filed in the prescribed from for claiming the benefit as aforesaid and that, if a proper application is filed as prescribed, the same will be considered in tune with the relevant provisions of the law.

¶39

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a proper application within two weeks; upon which, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, particularly in the light of the Board Order as referred to in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/

¶42

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶43

kmd

K.G.Rugmani Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Rugmani Amma v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

P.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.Asok Kumar Vs Department of Revenue

Anilkumar.T Vs the Kerla State Electricity Board

Bairen and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Shaji and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Leela.M. Vs State of Kerala