Remanded

B.Rajasekharan Pillai v. Managing Director,K.S.B.

Kerala HC1 Nov 2013WP(C)/29749/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a notice withholding funds from the petitioner's pension and remanded the matter to the Corporation for fresh consideration after a hearing, citing lack of apportionment of liability among employees.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 quashed and matter remitted to the 1st Respondent to reconsider after giving the petitioner and affected parties a hearing within three months.

B.Rajasekharan Pillai Vs Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 29749 of 2003 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. B.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, KALIYILAZHEIKAL, KONGAL, PARUR.P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.(SHOP ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, FL-I-238, KOTTIYAM)

¶8

*ADDL.P2 TO P4 IMPLEADED

¶9

*Addl.P2. LAKHAKUMARI, KALIYILAZHEIKAL, KONGAL, PARUR.P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

*Addl.P3. RAJESH KUMAR , KALIYILAZHEIKAL, KONGAL, PARUR.P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

*Addl. P4. LEKSHMI RAJASEKHARAN, KALIYILAZHEIKAL, KONGAL, PARUR.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

*ADDL. P2 TO P4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.11.2013 IN IA.NO. 13311/2013.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B.NO.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA CERAMICS LTD, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶17

3. THE WARE HOUSE MANAGER, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED,WARE HOUSE, KOLLAM, NOW WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR

¶18

(REGISTRATION) PAVITHRESWARAM, KOLLAM.

2/-

sts

-2-

WP(C)NO.29749/2003

¶23

4. M.YOHANNAN, DWE DALE, KUNDARA EAST.P.O., KOLLAM.

¶24

R1 & R3 BY SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORPORATION ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶25

SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

sts

¶28

WP(C)NO.29749/2003

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 19/9/01 P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/2/2002 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶32

P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/3/2003 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4 COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 31/7/2003 P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/5/2003 P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7/7/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶33

P7 COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 24/5/2002 P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/2/2002 FILED BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER OF KSBC.LTD

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

R4(A) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.KSBC/IA/042/2000-01 DATED 16/3/2001 R4(B) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.MD/29 DATED 15/5/1985

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 29749 of 2003

¶41

Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2013

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶44

According to the petitioner, he entered service in the Kerala Ceramics Ltd., Kundara, Kollam, as worker and; later, on 19.09.2001, he was deputed to the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. He was posted in Shop No.FL-I-238 at Kottiyam, as Shop Assistant. He was in Charge of the aforesaid shop. There were other employees also on daily wages. According to the petitioner, he filed Ext.P2 representation pointing out the irregularities in the functioning of the 4^th respondent, which resulted in a vigilance enquiry and; accordingly, the 4^th respondent was suspended from service. It was found that there was shortage in stock amounting to 1,47,011/-.₹ Thereafter, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and; he has been relieved from the 1^st respondent Corporation and; he was posted to his parent Department on 01.08.2003. The

¶45

..2..

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 29749 of 2003

¶47

grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation issued Ext.P6 notice, wherein it is mentioned that a sum of 1,47,011/- has to be withheld from the₹ pensionary benefits of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 FIR has been registered against the 4^th respondent and; therefore, the action of the 6^th respondent to withhold the aforesaid sum from his pensionary benefits, is illegal.

¶48

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶49

On a consideration of the entire materials placed on record, it is abundantly clear that there were other employees in the shop run by the 1^st respondent Corporation and; there was no proper apportionment of liability among the employees as mandated by Circular No.MD/29 dated 15.05.1985. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that there is a yet another circular issued by the respondent Corporation as Circular No.KSBC/SEC/080/2001-2002/10 dated 20.04.2001, which

¶50

..3..

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 29749 of 2003

¶52

states that the entire property of the shop covering the stocks, cash are entrusted to the Shop-in-Charge, who shall be accountable for the same.

¶53

In the light of the rival submissions made by both sides, this Court feels that this is a fit case to be remitted back to the 1^st respondent Corporation for reconsideration.

¶54

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of. Ext.P6 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the 1^st respondent Corporation for reconsidering the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner and the other affected parties, if any, within a period of three months from today. If it is ultimately found that any sum is due from the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, the 1^st respondent Corporation shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner and the 4^th respondent for the reimbursement of the amount, which they are bound to pay.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶57

bka/-

B.Rajasekharan Pillai v. Managing Director,K.S.B.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Rajasekharan Pillai v. Managing Director,K.S.B.

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

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

P.E.Varghese Vs Sreesankaracharya University

V.M.Gangadharan Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Rahulan Vs K.S.R.T.C.

M Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

Lourd Kunjumon Vs Union of India