Disposed

Sudhalatha.K.P v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2015WP(C)/15489/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Higher Secondary School Teacher aggrieved by delay in pensionary benefits, challenged the non-disbursal of Family Benefit Scheme, Group Insurance Scheme and Terminal Surrender of Earned Leave benefits. Court directed respondents to consider representation he.?i.,

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respondents to consider Ext.P6 and pass orders within two months, dealing with specific benefits.

Sudhalatha.K.P Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 15489 of 2015 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUDHALATHA.K.P AGED 58 YEARS D/O.C.N.GOPALAKURUP, RESIDING AT SUDHA NIVAS S.L PURAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA KERALA 688 523.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.SAJU WAHAB SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TRIVANDRUM 695 001.

¶11

2. THE FINANCE SECRETARY

¶12

FINANCE (FBS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE KERALA HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHINAGAR TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

4. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

6. THE PRINCIPAL

¶17

ABV HS SCHOOL, MUHAMMA, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA 688 525.

¶18

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. LOUSY A.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 15489 of 2015 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.1.14 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE PAYMENT ORDER DATED 1.4.14.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR 2011.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE YEAR 2012.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.10.13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.8.14 ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPTS.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL

// True copy //

PA to Judge

das

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 15489 of 2015

¶36

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2015

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner, who was working as HSST (English) at ABV High School, Muhamma, had retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.2013. In the writ petition, she is aggrieved by the delay in the disbursal, by the respondents, of the pensionary benefits due to her. It is stated that, while pension and gratuity were paid to her by vide Ext.P2 payment order, the benefits under the Family Benefit Scheme, Group Insurance Scheme and Terminal Surrender of Earned Leave were not disbursed to the petitioner. Pointing out her grievance in this regard, she has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th respondents, who are to look into the matter with regard to the various benefits that are due and payable to the petitioner. The limited prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the said respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 after hearing the petitioner.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶40

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th respondents to

¶41

-2-

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 15489 of 2015

¶43

consider and pass orders on Ext.P6, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2^nd , 3^rd and 4^th respondents shall each deal with the particular benefits, with which they are concerned, and pass orders on the representation in respect of the said benefits. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the said respondents, for further action.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

das

Sudhalatha.K.P v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhalatha.K.P v. the 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

The Baker Hill Residents Association Vs a.C.Kuriakose

Dr.J.Harikrishna Pillai Vs the Kerala University of Health Services

R.S.Sreedev Vs Kerala State Palmyrah Products Development and Workers Welfare Corporation (Kelpalm)

Dr. N.C.Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Venjaramoodu M.Ziyad Vs High Court of Kerala

R.Rajendraprasad Vs State of Kerala