Dismissed

Sri.B.Kabeerdas v. Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC21 Oct 2013DBP/42/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Suo Motu petition alleging arbitrary exclusion of a petitioner from ex-gratia minimum pension benefits. The petitioner, with six years of service who left office without permission, was denied the benefit granted to those retiring after 1.2.2011. The Court held him not entitled due to insufficient service and voluntary abandonment.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for ex-gratia minimum pension was rejected; the petition was disposed of.

Sri.B.Kabeerdas Vs Secretary Travancore… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶5

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935

¶6

DBP.No. 42 of 2013 ()

¶7

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - COMPLAINT RELATED TO THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS - TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPORT NO. 34/2013 - SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS - INITIATED REG :-

¶8

COMPLAINANT :

¶9

SRI.B.KABEERDAS, KIZHAKKINKARA VEEDU, BHAGAVATHI NADA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.G.BIJU

¶11

SRI.S.JAYAPRAKASH (MADAVOOR)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶14

2. THE DEVASWOM ACCOUNTS OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TDB BOARD BY ADV. SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR MAGOT, AMICUS CURIAE

¶16

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

DBP.No. 42 of 2013 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

COMPLAINANT'S ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE C1(a) : COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PAY/PENSION REVISION COMMITTEE.

¶23

ANNEXURE C1(b) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM DATED 1.7.2011.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :

¶25

ANNEXURE R1(a) : COPY OF THE ORDER ROC 10794/2013 DATED 2.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶26

ANNEXURE R1(b) : COPY OF LETTER D.A. NO. 6143/12/D1 DATED 18.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE LEARNED OMBUDSMAN.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶31

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶32

D.B.P.No. 42 of 2013

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶34

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶37

This is based on T.D.B. Report No.34/2013 of the learned Ombudsman. Herein, the complainant is seeking for ex-gratia minimum pension. His grievance is that the same is being granted to only persons who retired after 1.2.2011, whereas the said benefit is denied to him.

¶38

From the report of the learned Ombudsman it is seen that the complainant joined as Part-time Kazhakam in 1992 and from 2002 to 2006 he was on leave without pay and in 2006 he left the office without leave or permission. His retirement date is 30.11.2010. Including half of the parttime service his total service is only six years.

¶39

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the fixation of cut off date as 1.2.2011 is arbitrary.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel for the Board submitted that in the light of the service particulars of the complainant, he will not be entitled for the grant of benefits. He has not completed 10 years of service, and he left

¶41

DBP No.42/2013

¶42

-2-

¶43

the service on his own.

¶44

In the light of the fact that the complainant has no dispute about the fact that he was on leave from 2002 to 2006 without pay and in 2006 he left the office without leave or permission, he will not be entitled for the

¶45

benefit. Hence, the argument against the fixing of cut off date is only academic.

¶46

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there was no disciplinary action before 30.11.2010. But in the light of the fact that he left the office without leave or permission, which fact is not disputed, the absence of disciplinary action will not improve his case.

¶47

In the light of the above, the complainant is not entitled for the benefit of ex-gratia pension and we reject the prayer in the petition filed by the complainant.

¶48

The D.B.P. is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶50

(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶51

kav/

Sri.B.Kabeerdas v. Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B.Kabeerdas v. Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board

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

C.M.Narayana Pillai Vs G.v.Narayanan Nair

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs Sboa Public School Rep. by Its Principal

Sudhan Vs Sreekumar

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

The Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board Vs ..

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director