Allowed

K.a.Sivan v. Director,Urban Affairs

Kerala HC28 Nov 2012WP(C)/20572/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the delay in disbursing pensionary benefits to a retired attender of the Cochin Corporation. The Court directed the Corporation to process the claim, correct records regarding pay revision, and provide the benefits within two months, with actual disbursement following within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders for providing pensionary benefits within two months, and to disburse the amount within one month thereafter.

K.a.Sivan Vs Director,Urban Affairs — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/7TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 20572 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.A.SIVAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.K.C.AYYAPPAN, KAVADAPARAMBIL HOUSE MARADU P.O. THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. (ATTENDER, COCHIN CORPORATION-RETIRED)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THOMAS CHAZHUKKARAN SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DIRECTOR,URBAN AFFAIRS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN . ERNAKULAM. 682011.

¶12

ADDL.R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED

¶13

Addl.3. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

Addl.4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR LOCAL FUND AUDIT, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

(ADDL. R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 12367/2012 DATED 18/09/2012.)

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 20572 of 2012 (V)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO BEARING NO.P.D.4-25964/08 DATED 03-12-09 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-6-12.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

- - - - W.P.(c) No. 20572 OF 2012

¶28

¶29

Dated this the 28^th day of November , 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is aggrieved of the delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits. The case of the petitioner is that, he entered the service of the Corporation as an Attender in May 1985 and on attaining the age of superannuation of 55 years, he came out of the service on 31.03.2011. It is stated that the petitioner has got unblemished track record and that the delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits is without any rhyme or reason and hence is under challenge.

¶32

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Corporation pointing out the sequence of events, particularly stating that there were some defects in the pay fixation and that the defects have been rectified and the proceedings have been forwarded to the first respondent through the Deputy Director of Local Fund Audit, Ernakulam.

¶33

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits

¶34

W.P.(C)No.20572/2012 2

¶35

that the delay was never wilful or due to any deliberate negligence or lapse on the part of the Corporation. It is pointed out that there was a pay revision ordered by the Government as per G.O.(P)No.85/2011 dated 26/02/2011 with effect from 1.7.2009 and that the petitioner was also entitled to have the benefit thereunder. Accordingly, all the necessary records were to be corrected, prepared also granting the benefits of pay revision to the petitioner and it was accordingly, that the proceedings have been finalised and forwarded after curing the defects noted.

¶36

After hearing both the sides, the first respondent is directed to consider the claim and pass appropriate orders for providing pensionary benefits to the petitioner, in accordance with law, at the earliest at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The due amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner by the respondents within one month thereafter.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

sv.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.20572/2012 3

¶42

W.P.(C)No.20572/2012 4

K.a.Sivan v. Director,Urban Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Sivan v. Director,Urban Affairs

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

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Veneers & Laminations(India) Ltd.

B.Gopal Vs the Director General Cisf Head Quarters

The Parents Teachers Association Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs District Educational Officer

Dr.Balachandran Keezhoth Vs Kannur University & Others

Sanoj Y. Vs State of Kerala