Disposed

S.Muhammed Youseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2013WP(C)/4924/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired engineer challenged his sanction letter for benefits related to a higher promotion scale. The court held that the employer's failure to consider the promotion case was illegal. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to promotion and consequential benefits, rendering other prayer infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to higher grade promotion and consequential benefits to be released within three months; other prayers declared infructuous.

S.Muhammed Youseph 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 S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 4924 of 2006 (J)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

S. MOHAMMED YOOSUF, RETD. PLANT ENGINEER, MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., T.C.2/581 (3), CRESCENT, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-11.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., WALAYAR, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, MALABAR CEMENTS LTD. WALAYAR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶15

R2 & 3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND

¶16

SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 4924 of 2006 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 30.5.2003 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.103/97/ID DTD. 2.7.1997.

¶23

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 17.2.2003.

¶24

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18.12.2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 7.12.2003 FROM THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE JOINT SECRETARY CHIEF MINISTER'S PUBLIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL CELL.

¶26

EXT.P76. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.2.2005 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

P.A. TO JUDGE

/ TRUE COPY /

B.P.RAY, J.

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

¶33

W.P.(C)No.4924 OF 2006

¶34

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

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner retired from service of the company as Plant Engineer on superannuation on 30-6-2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of DA on the M5 scale and also the medical reimbursement and exgratia festival allowance. But by Ext.P3 order dated 17-2-2003, he has been sanctioned only with M5 revised scale. Hence the petitioner approached this Court with the following prayers:

¶37

i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to sanction M4 scale to the petitioner retrospectively w.e.f. 1-7-2000 and disburse all the consequential benefits arising therefrom.

¶38

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner forthwith along with 8% interest thereon from the date of retirement till the date of actual disbursal as has been time and again exhorted by the honourable Supreme Court.

¶39

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to disburse the arrears of dearness allowance to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible along with interest.

¶40

iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the second respondent to disburse the medical reimbursement to the petitioner along with the festival allowance which was due to the petitioner for the year 2002-03 along with interest at the market rate.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.4924 OF 2006

¶42

:: 2 ::

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶44

The petitioner was facing a vigilance enquiry. Nothing has been stated in the counter affidavit whether petitioner's performance was satisfactory or not. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner is entitled to time bound higher grade promotion w.e.f. 1-7-2000 and the same has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Petitioner has retired in the meantime. It is submitted that the persons similarly involved in the vigilance case have been given promotion.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is entitled to consideration only and not promotion. Had the petitioner's case would have been considered, rejected or kept under seal by the committee things would have been different. The management have failed to consider the same.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that the non consideration of the petitioner's case is illegal. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to higher grade promotion and therefore consequential benefits should be released in favour of the petitioner within

¶47

W.P.(C)No.4924 OF 2006

¶48

:: 3 ::

¶49

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So far as the other prayers are concerned, they are become infructuous.

¶50

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶52

jes

S.Muhammed Youseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muhammed Youseph 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

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

H.Haleefathudeen Vs State of Kerala

S.Mohammed Yusuf Vs the State of Kerala and Others