Disposed

K.v.Vijayamma v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2013WP(C)/20414/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the death of the petitioner's husband did not bar consideration of his unaddressed grievances regarding pay fixation. A direction was issued to the respondents to consider the husband's representation and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the unconsidered representation submitted by the petitioner's late husband.

K.v.Vijayamma Vs the Plantation Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20414 of 2013 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.V.VIJAYAMMA,

¶8

W/O LATE R. SASIDHARAN, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, NELLIKKALA P.O, ELANTHUR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, KOTTAYAM, KANJIKUZHI 686039 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, KODUMON ESTATE, KODUMON P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA -689693

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA, SC,

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 20414 of 2013 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09-09-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED 08-07-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT .

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J

W.P.(C)No.20414 of 2013

¶27

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2013

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner is the wife of late R.Sasidharan, who retired from the service of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, on 30/9/2003. Long later, he submitted re-options as per Ext.P1. In fact, Ext.P1 is a representation made by the retiree himself and along with the same he had submitted reoptions. In Ext.P1 it was contended that he was to get grade promotions with effect from 1/12/1980, 1/12/1990 and 1/9/1998. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that the husband of the petitioner was having certain grievances with respect to the pay fixation pursuant to the grant of the said higher grades and it is to redress that such grievances that he submitted Ext.P1 along with re-options. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the right to re-opt would depend upon the conditions in the concerned Government Order and as a matter of right one cannot exercise re-option. In this case, it is evident that raising certain grievances in the matter of fixation pursuant to the grant of the grade promotions the deceased husband of the petitioner had submitted Ext.P1. However the same was not considered by the respondents.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.20414 of 2013

¶31

¶32

After the death of her husband now the petitioner seeks only to pursue with the said grievances raised by her late husband which are remaining unconsidered. If on the other hand the petitioner herein raises claims for grade promotions for her husband after his death, this Court would not have definitely rejected such claims and contentions. However, in this case it is evident that the grievances pertaining to the pay fixation pursuant to the grade promotions were made before the first respondent by the deceased husband himself through Ext.P1 representation. The lapse of time would not and could not be a reason for throwing the said request made by the petitioner and in respect of such matters there is recurrence of cause of action. It is also a fact that consideration of such aspects will not adversely affect any third party. Still, as noticed hereinbefore, the entitlement of to get a favourable consideration regarding the grievances would depend up the right to exercise re-option. If there is no need to look into the re-options but the grievances can be redressed without addressing that issue, let such exercise be done in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation touching the merits of the contentions raised by

¶33

W.P.(C)No.20414 of 2013

¶34

¶35

the petitioner viz., regarding the right of the deceased husband of the petitioner to get his pay re-fixed pursuant to the grant of the above mentioned grade promotions. Since Ext.P1 is remaining unconsidered the reason that the concerned employee died in the year 2011 shall not stand in the way of consideration of Ext.P1 representation, at the instance of the petitioner. In the said circumstances without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, on Ext.P1. It shall be done as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

K.v.Vijayamma v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Vijayamma v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala

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

B.Devarajan Vs Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board

P.Sreeja Ravindran Vs the State of Kerala

Dr. v.M.Monica Vs State of Kerala

Jismith.B.C. Vs Sebannissa Beevi

Rani I. Vs State of Kerala

V.N. Sathyavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala & Others