Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. R.Rajapppan Pillai

Kerala HC28 Mar 2016RP/741/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala reviewed an order granting a government employee promotion and retirement benefits after his exoneration in a suspended vigilance case. Pending an appeal from his acquittal, the Court directed the payment of full pension and retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed payment of entire pension and retirement benefits pending appeal from acquittal; interest at 6% if paid late.

State of Kerala Vs R.Rajapppan Pillai — 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

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/8TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 741 of 2007 (B) IN WP(C).25427/2005

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25427/2005 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-01-2007

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.

¶10

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA VINOD

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

R.RAJAPPPAN PILLAI SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶14

BY ADVS. SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.K.A.BALAN

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶17

---------------------------------R.P. No.741 of 2007-B In W.P(C). No.25427 of 2005

¶18

---------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2016

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The unfortunate case of an employee of the Government, who was deliberately witch-hunted for no reason, is projected herein. It is also unfortunate that the Government has filed a review against the judgment passed.

¶21

2.The petitioner in the writ petition had

¶22

claimed a promotion as Deputy Tahsildar. On admission an interim order dated 29.08.2005 was passed, directing the respondents not to promote any junior of the petitioner as Deputy

¶23

R.P. No.741 of 2007-B In W.P(C). No.25427 of 2005 2

¶24

Tahsildar before promoting him to that post. The Government filed an application to vacate the said interim order, which was rejected as per a detailed order dated 15.12.2005.

¶25

The learned Single Judge, who disposed of

¶26

the writ petition, noticed that the Government's application to vacate the interim order was on the ground that he was facing trial before the Vigilance Court and there was sufficient grounds to supersede him. In the application for modifying the interim order, the Court referred to the provisions of Rule 31 (a)(i) of KS&SSR and taking note of the fact that the post of Deputy Tahsildar is not a selection post, affirmed the interim order. 4. Immediately afterwards, the petitioner

¶27

R.P. No.741 of 2007-B In W.P(C). No.25427 of 2005 3

¶28

was suspended, raising serious allegations of misconduct. The petitioner was superseded by promoting his juniors on the basis of the suspension order. The disciplinary proceedings ended in the exoneration of the petitioner by an order of the disciplinary authority dated 21.11.2006, which specifically indicates that the petitioner was deliberately witch-hunted by the Department. The petitioner also

¶29

superannuated on 30.06.2006.

¶30

This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, found that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar as claimed by him and directed fixation of his pay and allowances notionally. The petitioner was also directed to be paid the entire retirement

¶31

R.P. No.741 of 2007-B In W.P(C). No.25427 of 2005 4

¶32

benefits on such fixation reckoning the same for computation of retirement benefits including pension.

¶33

The only contention in the Review Petition is that, going by Rule 3A of Part-III KSR, the entire retirement benefits cannot be granted, when a vigilance case is pending. As of now, there is no vigilance case pending against the petitioner, since the petitioner is said to have been acquitted of all charges by judgment dated 16.03.2009. In such circumstance, there is no ground for review. Only considering the fact that the petitioner is still being paid only the provisional pension, there shall be a further direction in the review petition to pay the entire pension

¶34

R.P. No.741 of 2007-B In W.P(C). No.25427 of 2005 5

¶35

and the retirement benefits, pending the appeal said to have been filed from the order of acquittal. The benefits shall be computed and paid within a period of four months from today and if not, the arrears shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of retirement.

¶36

The Review Petition would stand dismissed

¶37

with the above observation. No costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. //True Copy// P.A. to Judge.

¶40

sp/29/03/16

State of Kerala v. R.Rajapppan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. R.Rajapppan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francis Jose Changamkery Vs the Deputy Director (Education)

P.N.Suresh Kumar Vs Kochi Devaswom Board

Aleykutty Abraham Vs M.G.University Appellate Tribunal

M.Abdul Lathif Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Krishna Varma Raja Vs v.C.Kerala Varma Raja

Rameshkumar.K. Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate