Partly allowed

G.Balakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2016WA/1431/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a petition seeking pension benefits. The Single Judge had dismissed it, noting the claim for SLR/NMR regularization was pending. The Appeal Court remanded for the Government to consider the appellant's representation regarding the pending claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed but Government directed to call for appellant's representation and consider it; Single Judge judgment modified.

G.Balakrishnan Unnithan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/21ST PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

WA.No. 1431 of 2010 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18713/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30.7.2010 APPELLANT(S):

¶9

G.BALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, SLR WORKER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, SASTHAMCOTTA.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE

SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN

RESPONDENT(S):

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SUB DIVISION OFFICE, MINOR IRRIGATION, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, SASTHAMCOTTA.

¶17

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA.1431/10

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE I - TRUE COY OF THE G.O (P) 106/85 DATED 17.9.1985.

¶23

ANNEXURE II - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.6.2010 IN W.P(C). NO.18713 OF 2010

¶24

ANNEXURE III - COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF G.O. (MS) NO.45/2014 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DATED9.6.2014 WITH TRANSLATION.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

sou.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J -------------------------------------------------------------W.A. No. 1431 of 2010

¶31

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Shaffique, J

¶34

This writ appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated 30.7.2010, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. According to him, he started his career as CLR worker on daily wages and he was absorbed in service as SLR worker with effect from 9.10.1991. The writ petition was filed at a time when he was due to retire on 30.6.2010. Though he made a claim seeking pensionary benefits he was faced with Ext.P4, by which he was informed that regularisation as SLR workers was pending consideration.

¶35

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition finding that Ext.P2 order which was relied upon by the petitioner related to SLR workers who were absorbed as NMR workers, which benefit cannot be claimed by the petitioner.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in so far as the claim of the petitioner has not been decided so far, it

¶37

¶38

W.A.1431/10

¶39

would be appropriate if the petitioner's claim be considered by the Government. The petitioner also relied upon various Government Orders where SLR workers were regularised in service.

¶40

Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submits that though the petitioner claims to have worked as SLR worker for about 29 years, the total number of days he had worked is less than 500 days. It is therefore submitted that in the absence of any regularisation of workers as NMR worker, the claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is only a few SLR workers who have not been regularisied and granted pension.

¶42

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, if the Government had not adverted to this issue regarding the claim made by the petitioner, we are of the view that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to submit a representation. Accordingly the writ appeal is disposed of as under :

¶43

The petitioner shall submit a representation to the Government, which shall be considered by the

¶44

¶45

W.A.1431/10

¶46

Government in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge shall stand modified to the above extent.

¶47

Sd/ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,

¶50

sou.16/3.

G.Balakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Balakrishnan Unnithan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.N.Raman Namboothiri Vs v.Rajalakshmi

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Jeeva.C.v.

Achutha Kurup and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sreenivas.P Vs v.S.Jayakumar

Pinakkal Zakir Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Pariyaran Chathankutty Vs Pandikashala Narikuth Saidalavi and Othe