Dismissed

Lonan Ouseph v. Corporation of Kochi

Kerala HC1 Dec 2012WP(C)/7159/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired employee, sought retirement benefits based on a 2009 pay revision. The Court directed the Corporation to recompute retirement benefits and release the differential amount and missing provident fund within two months, holding no further Government sanction was needed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to recompute figures and release the differential extent of retirement benefits and Provident Fund amount within two months.

Lonan Ouseph Vs Corporation of Kochi — 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

SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7159 of 2012 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LONAN OUSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.LATE OUSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS RESIDING AT THAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, 12/1141 PANAYAPPALLY, KOCHI-2.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.JOSE. V.V.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI

¶11

REP.BY SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION, KOCHI.

¶12

2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITEIS,

¶13

O/O.DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPALITIES

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

Addl.R3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY

¶16

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/11/2012 IN IA 15335/2012.)

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.N.RAVINDREN ACHARY,SC,COCHIN CORPN. BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶19

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶21

01-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 7159 of 2012

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT.P1. PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12-4-2010 TO THE HEALTH INSPECTOR OF THE 4TH CIRCLE FOR ISSUING THE DETAILS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE DEDUCTION OF PROVIDENT FUND SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT OFFICE FOR TH PERIOD FROM MARCH 1977 TO MARCH 1982.

¶27

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE PROVIDENT FUND FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1985 TO 2010 ISSUED BY THE CORCPORATION OF KOCHI TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M.O.A. 22/13787/10 KOCHI, DATED 30-4-2010 SANCTIONING THE DCRG, COMMUTATION OF PENSION AND MONTHLY PENSION TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE RE-OPTION FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REPRSENTATION DATED 19-12-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

kvr/

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(c) No.7159 OF 2012

¶37

¶38

Dated this the 1^st day of December , 2012

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is a retired contingent employee of the first respondent Corporation. After decades long service, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and came out of the service on 31/10/2009. But before retirement, there was a pay revision implemented with effect from 1.07.2009 and the petitioner, who was continuing in service as on that date was very much entitled to have the benefits by way of pay revision sought to be implemented. It also remains a fact that, benefits were extended by the Government as per Ext.P7 order dated 8.12.2011 and that the petitioner has been given the arrears of pay in respect of the left over service i.e. from the date of implementation of the pay revision with effect from 1.07.2009 till the date of retirement i.e. on 31.10.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been granted the full extent of retirement benefits based on the pay revision and hence the writ petition.

¶41

The first respondent Corporation has filed a counter affidavit stating that the benefits payable to the petitioner on the basis

¶42

W.P.(C)No.7159/2012 2

¶43

of the revised pay in respect of the service have already been disbursed to the petitioner. It is also stated that DCRG, Commutation Pension and such other amounts have been worked out and released to the petitioner reckoning the pay before the implementation of the pay revision. With regard to the payment of differential extent i.e. based on the pay revision, it is the stand of the first respondent that further orders are to be issued by the Government for payment of pension and the pensionary benefits on the revised rate.

¶44

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit referring to the factual position as to the revision of pay already implemented, further adding that the decision as to the revision of pension is still to be taken and that steps are going on in this regard. Without passing formal order, it is not open for the concerned local authorities to disburse the pension at the revised rate, forms the stand taken by the second respondent.

¶45

After going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner was very much in service when the pay revision was implemented with effect from 1.7.2009, as he retired from service only on 31.10.2009. By virtue of the relevant Rules, pension

¶46

W.P.(C)No.7159/2012

¶47

¶48

has to be worked out on the basis of the average last drawn salary for the last ten months and for working out the said figure, no further sanction of the Government is necessary. It is not a case where the petitioner came out of the service, followed by a pay revision order implemented from retrospective date. The pay revision was implemented when the petitioner was very much serving the Corporation and as such, this Court is of the firm view that no further sanction is necessary to work out the figures on the basis of the revised pay, more so when the revision of pay has already been implemented and the petitioner has already been released the arrears as well.

¶49

In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to recompute the figurers and release the differential extent of retirement benefits payable to the petitioner including the missing Provident Fund amount for the years 1997 to 1985, at the earliest, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶51

sv.

¶52

W.P.(C)No.7159/2012 4

¶53

W.P.(C)No.7159/2012 5

Lonan Ouseph v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lonan Ouseph v. Corporation of Kochi

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

Abdul Azeez Vs Sudevan.v.D.

R.Murali Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

V.Anilal Vs the Kollam Corporation

Kunjachan Vs the Changanassery Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary

S.Sheeladevi Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Aleykutty Vs the District Educational Officer, Malappuram