Disposed

K.S.Srelekha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2012WP(C)/22973/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerning delayed pension payments to the heirs of a deceased municipal employee was disposed of. The Court directed the Director of Urban Affairs to release the balance sanctioned amount within one month, directing the Municipality to disburse it subsequently.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to release the balance sanctioned pension amount within one month and the second respondent to disburse it within two weeks. Claim for interest left open.

K.S.Srelekha Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/5TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 22973 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.S.SRELEKHA, AGED 49 YEARS W/O.LATE P.NEELAKANTAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM, SOUTH GATE P.O. VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. N.ARUN

¶9

S/O.LATE P.NEELAKANTAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM, SOUTH GATE P.O. VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶10

3. ARATHY S NAIR

¶11

D/O.LATE P.NEELAKANTAN NAIR, CHAITHRAM, SOUTH GATE P.O. VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN

¶13

SRI.S.MOHANDAS

¶14

SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001.

¶17

2. THE SECRETARY ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683 101.

¶18

3. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶19

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN

¶20

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J RAJASREE

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 22973 of 2012 (V)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE NO.D00612471206026 DATED 11/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATH, MARADU MUNICIPALITY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.C1-5149/2012/K.DIS DATED 4/9/2012 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P11-135/2011 DATED 10/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10636/08 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST REQUEST DATED 11.10.2012 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶37

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The husband of the first petitioner by name P. Neelakantan Nair, while working as Revenue Officer Grade II in the Chalakkudy Municipality retired from service on 31.03.2011 and subsequently bid farewell to this world on 30.05.2012. The second and third petitioners are the children of the deceased employee and first petitioner herein.

¶40

The case of the petitioners is that, despite retirement from service as above, the pensionary benefits due to the deceased husband of the first petitioner were not disbursed to them so far; but for some paltry amount. The deceased husband of the first petitioner was also working in the second respondent Municipality and has got a lien there. By virtue of the said lien, it was always open for the husband of the first petitioner to have obtained pensionary benefits from the second respondent as well and he had exercised such option.

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

The pensionary benefits of the deceased employee came to be sanctioned by the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P3 proceedings dated 10.03.2012. The delay in disbursing the pensionary benefits made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶44

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that there is absolutely no fault or lapse on the part of the said Municipality; and that the first petitioner's deceased husband worked in that Municipality only for a short-while. But, by virtue of the relevant provisions of law, he could have opted the pensionary benefits to be paid by the second respondent as well. With regard to the observation in Ext. P3, the second respondent contends that the facts and figures given therein do not keep right track of truth, since no amount is due from the Municipality, unless the contrary is established with reference to the actuals. In spite of writing many a letter to the 3^rd respondent, it is still to be responded to. Reference is also made to Ext. R2 (a) proceedings dated

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

11.10.2012, in respect of the pensionary benefits payable to the deceased employee i.e. husband of the first petitioner. The learned counsel for the second respondent Municipality submits that proper reply is still to be issued by the third respondent, with regard to the remittances already made by the Municipality towards the pension fund.

¶48

The learned Government Pleader submits that, as per Rule 6 of the Kerala Municipality (Employees death-cumretirement benefit) Rules 1996, pension fund contribution has to be made by the second respondent Municipality. This however is stated as being made regularly, as put forth by the learned standing counsel for the Muncipality. The learned counsel further refers to Rule 9 with regard to the procedure for sanctioning pension and Rule 11 as to the disbursement of pension. For convenience of reference, the said Rules are extracted herein.

¶49

6. Central Pension Fund - (1) A fund named Central Pension Fund shall be opened on the control and supervision of the Director and shall be operated in the Savings Bank Account

¶50

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶51

: 4 :

¶52

of the Government Treasury or in the Savings Bank Account of the Nationalized Banks for the payment of pension under these rules and the amount received under Rule 8 shall be credited to this fund and the amount necessary for payment of pension benefits sanctioned under Rule 9 shall be transferred from this fund from time to time to the Municipal Pension Fund constituted under Rule 10.

¶53

(2) The amount in the Central Pension Fund other than that necessary for meeting daily expenses may be invested as fixed deposit in the Treasury or Nationalized Bank for getting more interest and the interest so earned shall be credited to the Central Pension Fund.

¶54

(3) The Central Pension Fund shall not be used for any other purposes except with the sanction of the Government.

¶55

(4) The accounts and registers of the Central Pension Fund shall be in the form specified by the Director of Local Fund Audit.

¶56

9. Procedure for sanctioning pension - (1) The Secretary shall prepare the pension-papers one year before the retirement of an employee in accordance with the provisions in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 and in the specified form and send the same to the Local Fund Audit Director with relevant document. The employee shall, in the application for pension indicate the Municipality from which he desires to draw pension and gratuity. The Local

¶57

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶58

: 5 :

¶59

Fund Director shall, after verifying the eligibility under Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, 1959 (forward the pension papers together with the verification report regarding the amount that may be sanctioned under items pension and gratuity to the Director of sanctioning the pension)

¶60

(2) The Director shall, immediately on receipt of the pension papers together with the verification report of the Local Fund Audit Director under sub-rule (1), issue orders sanctioning pension benefits admissible at the same time prepare pension payment order in duplicate and send one copy of the same to the pensioner and the other to the Secretary of the Municipality from where the pensioner desires to draw the pension benefits.

¶61

(3) The Director shall [on passing orders sanctioning pension under sub-rule (2)] withdraw from the Central Pension Fund, the total amount required for the payment of gratuity, commutation, pension and arrears including monthly pension for one year sanctioned to the pensioner and forward the same to the Secretary of the concerned Municipality by demand draft.

¶62

(4) The Secretary concerned shall obtain and keep the life certificate of the pensioners allotted to a Municipality for continuing the payment of pension and shall before the end of the month February every year apply to the Director, along with the schedule of pensioners for

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶64

: 6 :

¶65

sanctioning the amount required and the Director shall sanction the amount from the Central Pension Fund and give the same to the Secretary before 31^st of March.

¶66

11. Disbursement of Pension - (1) The Secretary shall, within fourteen days of receipt of (pension payment order and fund from the Director), give the pension benefits to the pensioners, from the Municipal Pension Fund, and forthwith intimate Director of the fact of payment of the amount. The pension for the succeeding months shall be paid by cheque or in cash on a date not beyond the first week of next month. The Secretary shall, if any pensioner requests in writing to pay his pension by money order, send it accordingly.

¶67

(2) The date of withdrawal of pension commutation by the pensioners and the details of total amount deducted from the monthly pension shall, in all cases where pension commutation is sanctioned, be reported to the Director and the amount deducted from the pension fund may be retained in the Municipal Fund and the amount so retained in the Municipal Pension shall be deducted when the next year's allotment is demanded and the Director shall sanction the allotment only after deducting such amount.

¶68

(3) The Secretary shall follow the procedure laid down in the Kerala Treasury Code and the Kerala Financial Code in the case of payment of pension and gratuity. The

¶69

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶70

: 7 :

¶71

duty of the Secretary in this regard shall be analogous so that a Treasury Officer entrusted with the disbursement of pension benefits.

¶72

(4) The registers and forms for the time being in force in Government Treasuries shall be used for the disbursement of pension and gratuity under these rules.

¶73

Going by the said Rules, the learned counsel seeks to assert that there is no fault or lapse on the part of the Municipality and that the amount already disbursed by the 3^rd respondent as mentioned in Ext. P3, to an extent of Rs.1,13,662/-, has already been released to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the balance amount has to come from the 3^rd respondent and the specific plea of the second respondent Municipality has not rebutted by the third respondent.

¶74

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the second respondent Municipality and also the learned Government Pleader for the first and third respondents, this Court finds that there is no dispute at all with regard to the amount payable to the

¶75

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶76

: 8 :

¶77

petitioners in respect of the service rendered by the deceased husband of the first petitioner. It also remains a fact that the amount has already been sanctioned as per Ext. P3. The dispute is more between the State/Department and second respondent Municipality. This Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to have the benefits sanctioned as per Ext. P3 and there is no point in making the petitioners to wait till the dispute between the other respondents are settled.

¶78

In the said circumstances, the third respondent is directed to release entire balance amount covered by Ext. P3 after minusing the amount already made available to the second respondent Municipality, for releasing the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one' month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The amount shall be disbursed by the second respondent immediately, at any rate, within two weeks thereafter. It is open for the respondents 1 and 3 to appraise the second respondent as to the actual amount, if any, due

¶79

W.P.(C) No. 22973 of 2012

¶80

: 9 :

¶81

from the second respondent, towards the pension fund and the deficit, if any, if not remitted on demand can be recovered, even by resorting to coercive proceedings, in accordance with law. This Court does not intend to express anything further in this regard. Claim for 'interest' is left open.

¶82

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶83

sd/-

¶84

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶85

kmd

K.S.Srelekha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Srelekha v. State of Kerala

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

St.Mary Davis Vs the State of Kerala

K.Deepa Vs the State of Kerala

Sudheesh S.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Thankamani Vs Smt. K.M. Karthyayani

Manager Vs State of Kerala

Suresan Kumbhanilath Vs State of Kerala