Allowed

A.Ramanakumar v. Kerala Agro Industries Corportion Ltd.

Kerala HC29 Oct 2012WP(C)/9510/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, suspended from 2003 without subsistence allowance, sought writ ordering regularization of suspension period and payment of allowance. Court held reinstatement did not negate liability for subsistence allowance.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to regularize suspension period from 28.01.2003 to 07.08.2003 and disburse subsistence allowance within two months.

A.Ramanakumar Vs Kerala Agro Industries… — 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 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/7TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9510 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.RAMANAKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS EXECUTIVE (PRODUCTION), KERALA AGRO FRUITS PRODUCTS PUNALOOR, RESIDING AT THIRUVATHIRA, TC 64/1898 THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695027.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, KISAN JYOTHY FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶11

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER

¶12

KERALA AGRO FRUIT PRODUCT (A UNIT OF KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.)

¶13

ARAMPUNNA, ELAMPAL P.O., PUNALUR -695 305

¶14

3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, MANAGER IN CHARGE

¶15

KERALA AGRO FRUIT PRODUCT (A UNIT OF KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.)

¶16

ARAMPUNNA, ELAMPAL P.O., PUNALUR - 695 305

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶18

SRI.P.GOPINATH

¶19

SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

DCS

¶22

WP(C).No. 9510 of 2012 (K)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT. P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 19.05.2003.

¶26

EXT. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.03.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶29

EXT. R1(a):COPY OF THE MEMO NO DA4/21/136 DATED 24.01.2003

¶30

EXT. R1(b):COPY OF THE MEMO NO. KAFP/DA 21/795 DATED 01.08.2003

¶31

EXT. R1(c):COPY OF THE PAYROLLS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST 2003

¶32

EXT. R1(c1):- COPY OF THE PAYROLLS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2003

¶33

EXT. R1(c2):- COPY OF THE PAYROLLS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2003

¶34

EXT. R1(c3):- COPY OF THE PAYROLLS OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2003

¶35

EXT. R1(d):COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT 29.05.2004

¶36

EXT. R1(e):COPY OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 12.05.2006

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶41

W.P.(C) NO. 9510 of 2012 (K)

¶42

Dated this the 29th day of October, 2012

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

The petitioner was placed under suspension in connection

¶45

with some misconduct from 28.01.2003, till he came to be re-instated pursuant to the subsequent order passed by the respondent/management enabling the petitioner to commence his duty from 01.08.2003. The case projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner was made to continue on suspension from 28.01.2003 to 06.11.2003 on the basis of false and frivolous charges and no subsistence allowance was paid to him during the said period.

¶46

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit pointing out the sequence of events and asserting that the petitioner came to be re-instated in the service with effect from 07.08.2003 and that he has been receiving full salary from August 2003 onwards. This being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to have any subsistence allowance in respect of period from August 2003 to November 2003. It is also pointed out from the part of the respondents that, in connection with disciplinary proceedings,

¶47

W.P.(C) NO. 9510 of 2012 (K)

¶48

¶49

there was no co-operation from the part of the petitioner, which led to the delay in finalising the proceedings. It was after taking note of all the facts and events, that the petitioner was permitted to re-join duty, with effect from 07.08.2003. The learned counsel adds that, taking a lenient view, the petitioner has been actually let off, with a 'warning' in respect of the misconduct.

¶50

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and also taking note of the pleadings and proceedings, it remains a fact that the petitioner continued on suspension from 28.01.2003 only till 07.08.2003, when he was re-instated in the duty. There is no positive averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was paid any subsistence allowance for the said period from 28.01.2003 to 07.08.2003. Now, since the proceedings have been finalised by giving a 'warning', the period during which the petitioner was made to wait outside on suspension from 28.01.2003 to 07.08.2003 is liable to be regularised by passing appropriate orders and the petitioner cannot be denied subsistence allowance, which otherwise was payable to him for

¶51

¶52

W.P.(C) NO. 9510 of 2012 (K)

¶53

the said period, in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶54

In the above circumstances, the respondents are

¶55

directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to the regularisation of period of suspension from 28.01.2003 to 07.08.2003 and see that the subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner in respect of the said period is disbursed to him, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two' months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶58

DCS

A.Ramanakumar v. Kerala Agro Industries Corportion Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ramanakumar v. Kerala Agro Industries Corportion Ltd.

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

U.v.Kumaran Vs K.Chandran

K.Subhadra Vs R.K.Singh

Manager, Puttekkad a.M.L.P.School Vs P.Sasidharan

Benny M.John Vs State of Kerala

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

Ajaya Kumar B. Vs K.S.E.B.