Disposed

Krishnan Govindan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2015WP(C)/20224/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Changanacherry Municipality to consider representations for revised pensionary benefits for retired contingent employees within two months and disburse the same within a further three months if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider representations and disburse revised pensionary benefits within three months if eligible.

Krishnan Govindan Vs 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.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/24TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 20224 of 2014 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

1. KRISHNAN GOVINDAN, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN NOMINAL MUSTER ROLL WORKER (RETIRED) CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, R/A.PARUVAPARAMBIL, NALUKODY P O, PAIPAD CHANGANACHERRY

¶9

2. K. SARASSAMMA, SANITATION WORKER(RETIRED)CHANGANACHERRY, MUNICIPALITY R/A.PARATHU THAZHAYIL PUZHAVATHU CHANGANACHEERY

¶10

3. K. K. SANTHAMMA, CONTINGENT DIVISION SWEEPER (RETIRED)HEALTH INSPECTOR, 2ND CIRCLE OFFICE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANACHERRY - PIN-686101

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.S.PARAMESWARA PRASAD

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, (MUNICIPAL CONTINGENT SERVICE)SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695001

¶15

2. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY REP BY ITS SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686101

¶16

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT DEPARTMENT CHANGANCHERRY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686101.

¶17

R1 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJASREE M.J. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 20224 of 2014 (C)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO E4/7416/97 DTD 29/7/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

¶24

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO H 2-5501/09 DTD 1/3/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER

¶25

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 10/7/2014 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 5/6/2014 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 28/4/2014 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶33

*****************************************************

¶34

W.P.(C) No.20224 of 2014

¶35

*****************************************************

¶36

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2015

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioners are the retired Contingent employees under

¶39

the second respondent. The first petitioner retired from service as Nominal Muster Roll Worker on 31.7.1998. The second petitioner retired from service as Sanitation Worker on 30.4.2006. The third petitioner retired from service as Contingent Division Sweeper on 31.12.2009. It is submitted that the second respondent sanctioned and disbursed the monthly pension but they have so far not received other benefits including pay revision arrears. Accordingly, the petitioners have approached the second respondent by way of Exts.P3 to P5 representations.

¶40

In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the

¶41

second respondent to consider Exts.P3 to P5 representations

¶42

W.P.(C) No.20224 of 2014 2

¶43

within a period of two months after affording an opportunity of

¶44

hearing to the petitioner and if it is found the petitioner is entitled for revised pensionary benefits, the same shall be disbursed without further delay, at any rate, within a further period of three months.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶47

Krishnan Govindan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan Govindan 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

Madathil Sankaran Vs Mr.Ramachandran,District Collector,Palakkad

Dileep K.D. Vs Chandran.C.

Marykutty Sam Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar G Vs Village Officer

V a Shihabudheen Vs the State of Kerala

C.K.Balan Vs Changanacherry Municipality