This judgment dismisses a writ petition where petitioners challenged the recovery of interim relief from their final payment. The court followed the precedent in A.K. Bindal v. UOI, holding that recovery was permissible under the scheme, leaving petitioners to claim a refund if advised.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/21ST POUSHA 1933
OP.No. 10311 of 2002 (C)
PETITIONERS:-
1 C.P.RAJAGOPALAN, (EX-T.NO.3668 ASST.ENGINEER HMT) "PRASANTH BHAVAN" PERINGAZHA HMT COLONY P.O. KALAMASSERY - 683 503. 2 G.RAVINDRAN PILLAI, "ATHIRA", HMT COLONY KALAMASSERY - 683 503. 3 K.P.RAVINDRAN, (EX.T.NO.2688 DY.ENGINEER HMT) "SOORAJ" III/44 THOTTUMUGHAM P.O. KUTTAMASSERY ALUVA-683 105. 4 C.L.JOSEPH, (EX-T.NO.3261 WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT) CHELAVANA 16/1724 T&R CROSS ROAD THOPPUMPADY KOCHI-5. 5 P.D.JANARDHANAN NAIR, (EX-T.NO.3633 WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT) 'DHANYA', KAIRALY NAGAR KALAMASSERY-683 104.
O.P.No. 10311/2002 : 2:
6 ANTONY LEON, (EX-T.NO.3462 WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT) S.S. VILLA' CHENAKALA ROAD KALAMASSERY P.O. ERNAKULAM. 7 V.KRISHNA MOHAN, (EX-T.NO.3450, WORKER SUPERVISOR, HMT) KRISHNA DEVAM' HARITHA NAGAR, WEST YAKKRA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV.DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SRI.ANTONY M. AMBAT RESPONDENTS: ==========
1 CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, HMT LTD., HMT BHAVAN, 59, BILLARY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 032. 2 GENERAL MANAGER, HMT LTD., HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY-683 503. 3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (WC), 14, CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003. BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SRI.MATHEWS J.NEDUMPARA, ADDL.CGSC SRI.S.R.AJITH, ADDL.CGSC
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.No. 10311/2002 : 3:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2002 GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2002 GIVEN BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2002 GIVEN BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2002 GIVEN BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.
EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.02.2002 GIVEN BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
O.P.No. 10311/2002 : 4:
O.P.No. 10311/2002 : 5:
O.P.No. 10311/2002 : 6:
O.P.No. 10311/2002 : 7:
B.P. RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.10311 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.
rv
O.P. No.
-:2:-
B.P. RAY, J.
O.P.No. 10311 of 2002
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2012.
JUDGMENT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery of interim relief from final payment is mandatory under the applicable scheme.
Whether the writ petition challenging the recovery should be allowed in view of the binding precedent in A.K. Bindal v. UOI.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.K. Bindal v. UOIFollowed¶42
(2003) 5 SCC 163 - A.K. Bindal v. UOI · Who else cites this
C.P.Rajagopalan and others
HMT Ltd. and others
B.P. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
