Remanded

Balakrishnan P.P v. K.K.Nithin

Kerala HC8 Apr 2016RP/33/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge recalled judgments in individual writ petitions holding that a management dispute required hearing the petitioner. Directed State to consider revision after affording opportunity of hearing to the Manager and corporate agency members within four months. Review petitions and writ petitions disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Judgments in connected writ petitions recalled; direction to 2nd respondent to afford hearing to Manager and agency members and consider revision within four months.

Balakrishnan P.P Vs K.K.Nithin — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 33 of 2016 (J) IN WP(C).33697/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33697/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-11-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

BALAKRISHNAN P.P

¶9

PILAVULLATHIL HOUSE, POST PATHIRIPATTA, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6:

¶12

1. K.K.NITHIN LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT, PATHIRIPPATTA U P SCHOOL, P O PATHIRIPPATTA, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 678052

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GENERAL EDUDCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014

¶16

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673101

¶17

5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KUNNUMMAL, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673308

¶18

6. THE HEADMASTER PATHIRIPPATTA U P SCHOOL, P O PATHIRIPPATTA, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 678052

¶19

7. THE MANAGER PATHIRIPPATTA U P SCHOOL, P O PATHIRIPPATTA, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 678052 R1 BY SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED R2-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI M A FAYAZ

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2016, ALONG WITH RP. 62/2016, RP. 63/2016, RP. 96/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

R.P NO.33/2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

REVIEW PETITIONERS ANNEXURES

¶24

ANNEXURE AI: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER IN I.A. 538/2015 IN OS 19/2015 ON THE FILES OF SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, VADAKARA

¶25

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC NO.38630/2015 DT 18.12.2015

¶26

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

R.P No.33 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.33697 of 2015 & W.P(C) No.33697 of 2015, R.P No.63 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.33763 of 2015 & W.P(C) No.33763 of 2015, R.P No.62 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.33698 of 2015 & W.P(C) No.33698 of 2015 and R.P No.96 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.33760 of 2015 & W.P(C) No.33760 of 2015

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 08^th day of April, 2016

¶35

O R D E R & J U D G M E N T

¶36

The above review petitions were filed in the individual writ

¶37

petitions since the direction in the judgment passed in the individual writ petitions were to consider the revision in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Manager and the individual petitioners. The review petitioner

¶38

has come forward with the case that there is in fact a management dispute between the brothers. On the death of the mother of the review petitioner who was also a part of the corporate management, both the review petitioner and his brother has a right to be included in the corporate educational agency. In such circumstance, the review petitioner claims that he also should be

¶39

heard when the revisions are considered. In the circumstances

¶40

RP No33 of 2016 & conn. cases

¶41

: Page numbers :

¶42

coming out from the review petition, it is deemed fit that the

¶43

judgments in the writ petitions be recalled. There shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider the revision in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person who is in the office of the Manager and also the other members constituting the educational agency including the review petitioner herein. The same shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment/order.

¶44

All the Review Petitions and Writ Petitions are disposed

¶45

of. No costs.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶48

jma

¶49

//true copy//

¶50

P.A to Judge

Balakrishnan P.P v. K.K.Nithin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan P.P v. K.K.Nithin

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

S.v.Sheeja Vs State of Kerala

Santhi Sukumaran Vs the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla

M/S. Ceat Limited Vs State of Kerala

Suja Mary John Vs Manager

Shylaja P.K. Vs University of Calicut

Rajeevan.K Vs Kerala Agricultural University