Disposed

G.Thankappan v. the Kayamkulam Municipality

Kerala HC1 Oct 2012WP(C)/7898/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired sanitation workers petitioned for the balance of benefits arising from a post-retirement pay revision ordered by the Government. The Court, recording the respondent's assurance, disposed of the writ petition directing immediate payment of the remaining dues.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to release the remaining benefits to the petitioners forthwith, at any rate on or before 30th of the relevant month.

G.Thankappan Vs the Kayamkulam Municipality — 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 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7898 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. G.THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT

¶8

KOCHAYYATHU VEEDU, PULLIKKANAKKU,

¶9

PALLIKKAL (P.O), KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

2. A. BHANU, RESIDING AT MANASSERITHARAYIL,

¶11

ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM.

¶12

3. SULAIMANKUNJU E., RESIDING AT PANIPPURATHEKKETHIL,

¶13

KAYAMKULAM.

¶14

4. RAMAKRISHNAN CHETTIYAR,

¶15

RESIDING AT KALEEKKAL VEEDU,

¶16

PUTHUPPALLY, KAYAMKULAM.

¶17

5. GOPALAN P., RESIDING AT

¶18

PANACHAKAVIL VEEDU, CLAPPANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

THE KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KAYAMKULAM-690 502.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.RAYA SHENOI, SC.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

rs.

¶25

WP(C).No. 7898 of 2012 (J)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2011 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P1A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2011 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P1B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2011 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P1C: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2011 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P1D: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2011 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(MS)NO.200/2011/LSD DATED 25.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶34

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.2912/2011/LSD DATED 08.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24/04/2012 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶41

¶42

......................................................................... Dated this the 1^st October, 2012

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

The petitioners, who were working as Sanitation workers in the respondent Municipality, retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011/31.05.2011. It was after their retirement, that Ext.P2 Pay Revision for Sanitary workers and contingent cleaning staff was brought about, as a result of which, the petitioners also became entitled for the benefit of the same and this will have an impact on the retirement benefits as well. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs.

¶45

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 27.06.2012, the following order was passed.:

¶46

“ It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Municipality that the DCRG and commuted value of pension as per the pre-revised rate have already been disbursed to the petitioners . He further submits that the

¶47

¶48

¶49

revised benefits can be disbursed to the petitioners only after fixation of pay in accordance with the pay revision order. He points out that the pay revision order is dated 8.12.2011, which was received from the Government by the Municipality only on 30.03.2012 and the petitioners have submitted their option to come over to the revised scale of pay only on 8.6.12 and 12.6.12 and the Municipality has three months' time to fix the pay in accordance with the option.

¶50

Post after three months.”

¶51

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that first

¶52

part of the relief sought for vide prayer No.I stands already satisfied, but something more is to be done by the respondents to disburse the entire benefits pursuant to the Pay Revision, as aforesaid.

¶53

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that necessary steps have been taken by the Municipality to see that the left over benefits are also disbursed to the petitioners at the earliest, at any rate on or before 30^th of

¶54

this month. A copy of the communication bearing

¶55

¶56

¶57

No.A2/4626/12 dated 29.09.2012 obtained in this regard is also placed for consideration of this Court.

¶58

In the said circumstance, this Court does not find it necessary to pass any further orders, but for recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel as above. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to release the remaining benefits to the petitioners forthwith, at any rate, on or before 30^th of this month, as assured and undertaken.

¶59

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶60

G.Thankappan v. the Kayamkulam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Thankappan v. the Kayamkulam Municipality

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

Jinu.a. Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Anuraj Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Prema Subramanian Vs the Director

M/S.Mercator Ltd. Vs the Board of Trustees of Cochin Port Trust

Shri.M.a.K.Azad Vs the Commercial Tax Officer, Iind Circle, Trippunithura

K.v.Manoj Kumar Vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medica