Dismissed

H.Haleefathudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2013WP(C)/34306/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of retrospective monetary benefits. The court held there was no merit as the petitioner's claim was previously dismissed in Original Petition No. 18024/99 filed against an order found applicable under the Kerala Service Rules.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition calling for quashing of orders and claiming monetary benefits was dismissed.

H.Haleefathudeen Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013/31ST ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 34306 of 2005 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

H.HALEEFATHUDEEN, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RTESIDING AT SAFA, VAZHAPPALLY, IMAYANALLOOR P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.GEORGE T. THACHETT SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.HARI KUMAR ,SC,KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUST.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 34306 of 2005 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/8/2000 IN CCC.NO.276/2000 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶19

P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB.7621/90/E1(A) DATED 26/8/2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB.7621/90/E1(A) DATED 29/5/2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

P4: COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 11/9/92.

¶22

P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB.9169/02/E1(A) DATED 19/4/2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB.3853/04/E2 DATED 28/5/2004 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/8/2005 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶26

R2(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/10/2000 IN OP.NO.18024 OF 1999 U.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

B.P. Ray, J.

====================================

¶32

W.P.(C)No.34306/2005

¶33

====================================

¶34

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2013.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel

¶37

for the Khadi Board and the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶39

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to and culminating in Exts.P6 and P7 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and without basis and unconstitutional;

¶40

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to compute the monetary benefits arising out of the retrospective promotion with effect from 1.6.1995 along with 12% interest;

¶41

iii) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice; and iv) award costs to the petitioner.”

¶42

Petitioner was superseded while he was functioning as the Deputy

¶43

Director of the second respondent Board and his juniors were

¶44

W.P.(C)No.34306/2005 -:2:-

¶45

promoted to the post of Director as per the order dated 16.4.1997. This Court quashed the order in O.P.No.8755/97 and held that the denial of promotion to the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable and ordered all consequential benefits. Though the judgment was passed on 10.2.1999, the petitioner was not promoted retrospectively with effect from 1995. Petitioner was given retrospective promotion in pursuance to a contempt petition filed by him and given monetary benefits from the date of promotion without giving any arrears of salary as that of a Director. However, the pay was notionally fixed in terms of Rule 23(a) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules which provides that a person is to be given monetary benefits from the date of assumption of office. Petitioner claims that he should be given monetary benefits at least from 10.2.1997, the date on which his juniors were promoted. Petitioner filed another Original Petition against the order in O.P.18024/99 which was dismissed on 9.10.2000. Since the petitioner was promoted with effect from1995

¶46

W.P.(C)No.34306/2005

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

and in terms of Rule 23(a) of Part I KSR on the basis of which his pay was notionally fixed, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, particularly when his claim was dismissed in O.P.18024/99. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶49

sl.

¶50

B.P. Ray, Judge.

H.Haleefathudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Haleefathudeen v. State 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

C.L.Francis Vs State of Kerla

Corporate Manager Vs Registrar, Calicut University

Dr.N.R.Nisha Vs University of Kerala

S.Muhammed Youseph Vs State of Kerala

Director of Collegeiate Edn. Tvm Vs Dr.K.Sadasivan & Others

S.Mohammed Yusuf Vs the State of Kerala and Others