Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. Rameshkumar

Kerala HC12 Jun 2012RP/307/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court reviewed a judgment fixing a time limit for rectifying pay anomalies in the ST Development Department. Acknowledging that a policy decision was required, though an anomaly existed, the court modified the decision to remove the rigid time limit, directing a decision expeditiously as possible.

What did the court decide?

The judgment is reviewed to remove the fixed time limit; instead, it directs the Government to take a decision as expeditiously as possible.

State of Kerala Vs Rameshkumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 307 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.30589/2009 DATED 06-08-2010

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 T 5 IN W.P.(C):

¶8

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTES SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

3. THE TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ITDP), CIVIL STATION, KALPATTA, WAYANAD.

¶12

5. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, (ITDP) KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SMT.LALY VINCENT,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):

¶15

1. RAMESHKUMAR S.,

¶16

AGED 39 YEARS,

¶17

S/O. LATE SURENDRAN, WORKING AS TRAINING SUPERINTENDENT, V.T.C., RANNI, RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM, KOCHALUMMOODU, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 672.

¶18

2. KRISHNAKUTTY ACHARI,

¶19

AGED 42 YEARS,

¶20

S/O LATE GOPALAN ACHARI, NOW WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR, INDUSTRIAL CRAFT CENTRE, THRIKKAIPPETTA, WAYANAD, RESIDING AT PALAPALLIL KIZHAKKETHIL, KURUMBALA PANDALAM PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 501.

--2--

--2--

RP.No. 307 of 2012 ()

¶25

3. BINU A.P., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O PARAMESWARAN ACHARI, WORKING AS INSTRUCTOR, MWTC ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ANAPPURA ASARIPARAMBIL, VAIKOW, RANNI PO., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 672. BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

RP.No. 307 of 2012 ()

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶31

ANNEXURE-A:	COPY OF AMENDED G.O(P) NO.262/2007(56)/FIN DATED 19.06.2007.
ANNEXURE-B:	COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.4/80/DD DATED 17.01.1980.
ANNEXURE-C:	COPY OF G.O(P) NO.29/93/P&ARD DATED 15.05.1993.
ANNEXURE-D:	COPY OF LETTER NO.23329/D/2003/SCST DD DATED 05.05.2010.
ANNEXURE-E:	COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.18/2010/SCST/DD DATED 20.02.2010.
ANNEXURE-F:	COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.81/2010/FIN.DATED 20.02.2010.
ANNEXURE-G:	COPY OF LETTER NO.18456/D1/10/SC ST DD DATED 29.11.2010.
ANNEXURE-H:	COPY OF LETTER NO.942/D1/11/SCST DD DATED 04.02.2011.
ANNEXURE-I:	COPY OF LETTER NO.E4-16922/09 DATED 10.02.2011.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶37

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

¶38

RP.NO.307/2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.30589/09

¶39

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

¶40

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2012

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

Writ Petition No.30589/09 was disposed of by judgment dated 6^th August, 2010 directing that a decision on rectification of the anomaly in the matter of pay of the Instructors in the ST Development Department should be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 months. Complaining that the judgment has not been complied with the writ petitioners filed Contempt Petition No.197/2012.

¶43

It was immediately thereafter this review petition was filed by the respondents in the writ petition. Even in the review petition while the respondents also admit that there is an anomaly as complained by the petitioners, they state that, though the matter was referred to the 9^th pay Commission, the 9^th pay commission did not take a final decision in the matter. It is also submitted that the matter was referred to the Anomaly Rectification Committee and that the Anomaly Rectification Committee made its recommendations and the matter will have also be considered by various departments of the

¶44

RP.No. 307/2012

¶45

:2 :

¶46

Government of Kerala and the concurrence of the Public Service Commission will also have to be obtained.

¶47

Evidently therefore, the issue raised by the petitioner require a policy decision and the procedure that is laid down for the same will have to be complied with. In such a situation though the anomaly deserve to be rectified, it is unrealistic to fix a time limit as done in the judgment. To that extent the judgment needs to be modified. Otherwise the result will be that the official respondents in the writ petition will have to await policy decision and at the same time would be exposed to proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act which have already been launched by the petitioners.

¶48

In such circumstances the judgment is reviewed to the extent time limit is fixed in the judgment and it is directed that a decision as ordered in the judgment will be taken by the Government as expeditiously as possible.

¶49

Review Petition is disposed of as above.

¶50

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

vi/

RP.No. 307/2012

:3 :

RP.No. 307/2012

:4 :

State of Kerala v. Rameshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Rameshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N. Rajeev @ P.N. Reji Vs M/S. Deltech

Pushpalatha Vs Sri.Velappan Nadar, Secretary, Karode Gr

Oonhilot Nanu Vs the State of Kerala

Ramesh Kumar Vs Dr.F.Subbayah

The Muthoot Plaza Airpots Operations Vs Shri R.S. Gujral, Secretary to Government

State Bank of India Vs K.a.Thomas