Disposed

P.P.Narayanan v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC30 Oct 2012WP(C)/21958/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought relief for the University's non-disbursement of sanctioned terminal benefits and DCRG due to alleged inordinate delay and unjustified withholding. The Court held that while procedural verification was necessary, the delay was unsustainable and directed the University to ensure the full amount was disbursed within one month.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent University to see that the due amount is actually disbursed to the petitioner forthwith, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt

P.P.Narayanan Vs University of Calicut — 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

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21958 of 2012 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.P.NARAYANAN,AGED 56 YEARS

¶8

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (HIGHER GRADE ) (RETIRED), UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THENHIPALAM MALAPPURAM -673635.

¶12

2. THE FINANCE OFFICER,

¶13

UNIVERSITY 0F CALICUT, THENHIPALAM

¶14

MALAPPURAM-673635.

¶15

3. DR.M.V.JOSEPH,

¶16

PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF BIO-TECHNOLOGY

¶17

UNIVERSITY 0F CALICUT, THENHIPALAM

¶18

MALAPPURAM-673635.

¶19

BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW,SC,CALICUTY UNIVERS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 21958 of 2012 (T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF REGARD DATED	THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY IN THIS 30/04/2012.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF	THE U.O NOTE DATED 16/07/2012.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF	THE U.O NOTE DATED 17/07/2012.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner who was working as an Assistant Registrar

¶35

(Higher Grade) in the respondent University retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation, after rendering 34 years of service, on 30.04.2012. It is stated that the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner are sanctioned as per Ext. P1 order dated 30.04.2012 and consequential directions were given to the concerned authority vide Ext. P2, to take further action. The grievance of the petitioner is that, immediately after issuing Ext. P2 order dated 16.07.2012 directing the Finance Computer Cell to take further action, another order came to be passed on the very next day vide Ext. P3, to withhold the DCRG sanctioned. According to the petitioner, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to withhold the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate relief.

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 21958 of 2012

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, the

¶39

University has entered appearance. The learned standing counsel for the University submits that the course and events leading to non-disbursement of sanctioned DCRG was not because of any culpable delay on the part of the University but for the minimum time required to verify the proceedings and to complete the procedural formalities. The learned counsel further submits that, after verifying all the records, clearance has been given and the DCRG to an extent of Rs. 7 lakhs has been ordered to be released, giving necessary instruction to the Finance Computer Cell as per order dated 20.10.2012. Accordingly, a further 'University Note' dated 29.10.2012 has been issued, giving details of the amount released to the petitioner.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount is still to reach the hands of the petitioner and that there is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay, whereby substantial amount was wrongly retained at the

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 21958 of 2012

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

hands of the University generating funds of their own.

¶44

After hearing both the sides, the Writ Petition is

¶45

disposed of, directing the respondent University to see that the due amount is actually disbursed to the petitioner forthwith; at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim of the petitioner

¶46

for 'interest' payable for the delay, is left open.

¶47

sd/-

¶48

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶49

kmd

¶50

/True copy/

¶51

P.A. to Judge

P.P.Narayanan v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Narayanan v. University of Calicut

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

Benny M.John Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan S. Vs the Manager, Aided Upper Primary School, Tripannur

A.Ramanakumar Vs Kerala Agro Industries Corportion Ltd.

T.B.Anilkumar Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Syamkumar P Vs the State of Kerala

G.Surendran Pillai Vs the Union of India