Disposed

V.T.Thomas v. the Chief Engineer (Hrm)

Kerala HC29 Nov 2012WP(C)/24205/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment directs the First Respondent of the Kerala State Electricity Board to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P3) regarding his non-payment of pension due to alleged abandonment of service. The court also directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing and an order passed within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the First Respondent to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders after a hearing within six weeks.

V.T.Thomas Vs the Chief Engineer (Hrm) — 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

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 24205 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

V.T.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, VALLYAMANNIL HOUSE, MUNDIYAPPALLY P.O. THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶9

SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

2. THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION SANCTION), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 018.

¶14

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.

¶15

BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

AMV

¶18

WP(C).No. 24205 of 2012 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.07.2010.

¶23

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P4: COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 14.06.2012 ISSUED FROM ST.GEGORIOS CARDIO VASCULAR CENTRE.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) NO. 24205 of 2012 (A)

¶31

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2012

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved of non-payment of the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in respect of the service rendered in the respondent Board.

¶34

Case of the petitioner is that, while working as an 'Overseer', he came to be proceeded against in respect of some misconduct and was placed under suspension. Subsequently, he

¶35

was reinstated in service as per Ext.P1 with effect from 26.06.2009 and he retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009. It is stated that, in connection with some personal exigencies, the petitioner had to avail leave and made an application in this regard till 30.11.2009; but the same came to be sanctioned only up to 28.10.2009. In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to be transferred to Kozhikode, which according to the petitioner was not communicated to him; as a result of which, he could not join duty before retirement.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that

¶37

W.P.(C) NO. 24205 of 2012 (A)

¶38

¶39

the request made by the petitioner to grant the pensionary benefits has not been acceded to by the respondents, stating that there is an abandonment of service, which is not at all correct or proper. The learned counsel also submits that the sequence of events has already been brought to the notice of the first respondent by filing Ext.P3, which is pending consideration. It is stated that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent to have it considered and disposed of, within a reasonable time. It is pointed out that the present plight of the petitioner is quite pitiable and he is confronted with various adverse circumstances, including the Psychiatric ailments of his wife and the treatment being availed by the petitioner in respect of serious heart problems; amidst the studies of the children.

¶40

Heard the learned standing counsel for the Board as

¶41

well.

¶42

Considering the facts and circumstances, the first

¶43

respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) NO. 24205 of 2012 (A)

¶46

orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶49

AMV

V.T.Thomas v. the Chief Engineer (Hrm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.T.Thomas v. the Chief Engineer (Hrm)

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

Sreekumar Vs District Educational Officer

K.a.Sivan Vs Director,Urban Affairs

Dr.Balachandran Keezhoth Vs Kannur University & Others

V.C.Prajitha Vs the Assistant Educational Officer

Dr.Joseph James Vs the Registrar

N.M. Majeed Vs the Manager