Allowed

K.Maniyan v. Mavelikkara Municipality

Kerala HC18 Jun 2015WP(C)/3488/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed the Mavelikara Municipality to pay the petitioner's due retirement benefits within four months. The court imposed a 6% per annum interest liability for any further delay in disbursal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay due retirement benefits within four months from the receipt of the judgment copy, with 6% per annum interest on delayed amounts.

K.Maniyan Vs Mavelikkara Municipality — 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/28TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3488 of 2015 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

K.MANIYAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUKUNJU, KARTHIKA BHAVANAM, CHETTIKULANGARA EREZHA NORTH, MAVELIKKARA (RETIRED SANITATION WORKER MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY).

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, MAVELIKKARA.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS URBAN AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE, SWARAJ BHAVAN, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

¶12

R-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.RASHEED.C, SC, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 3488 of 2015 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET SHOWING THE RETIRING PENSION BENEFIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET FOR COMPUTATION PENSION DATED 25-06-2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶19

//TRUE COPY//

¶20

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶21

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶22

W.P.(C).NO.3488 OF 2015 (I)

¶23

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2015

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioner, who had retired from the services of the 1^st respondent Municipality, is aggrieved by the non-disbursal of retirement benefits that was due to the petitioner despite of lapse of more than one year from the date of retirement of the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks disbursal of the retirement benefits that has been computed in Ext.P2 and are not disputed by the 1^st respondent Municipality.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality.

¶27

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and also taking note of the fact that the reason given by the 1^st respondent Municipality for the delay in effecting payment of the amounts that were admittedly due to the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent Municipality is currently

¶28

W.P.(C).No.3488/2015

¶29

¶30

facing a financial crunch, I am inclined to permit the 1^st respondent Municipality to pay the amounts that are due to the petitioner, as disclosed in Ext.P2, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Amounts, if any, already paid by the 1^st respondent Municipality to the petitioner, can be adjusted from the payments that are directed to be made as per this judgment. I make it clear that if the amounts that are directed to be paid, are not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated time, then the 1^st respondent Municipality shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum on the said amounts, for the delay occassioned in disbursal of the benefits immediately after the expiry of the period of four months, till the date of actual disbursal to the petitioner.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶32

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶33

prp

K.Maniyan v. Mavelikkara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Maniyan v. Mavelikkara Municipality

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

Sreerej Nath G. and Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Lakshmi R. Vs the Palakkad Municipality

Sandhyamol.P.R Vs State of Kerala

Tijo Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Soumya G.D. Vs State of Kerala

The Manager Vs State of Kerala