Allowed

V.P.Prabhakaran Kartha v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016WA/1785/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ appeal challenging an order by the Kerala High Court that set aside directions issued by the Lok Ayukta regarding pensionary benefits. The bench held that the Lok Ayukta exceeded its jurisdiction by passing a positive direction and remanded the claim for consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of by affirming the single Judge's order directing respondents to consider the appellant's claim on merits within two months.

V.P.Prabhakaran Kartha Vs Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

SUNDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/19TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶7

WA.No. 1785 of 2013 () IN WP(C).22187/2009

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22187/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-02-2013

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2:

¶10

V.P.PRABHAKARAN KARTHA, S/O. PRABHAKARAN KARTHA, PUNARTHAM, UNIVERSITY NAGAR, KAU P.O., VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 656.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.1:

¶13

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶14

THE CHEIF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶15

THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY REGISTRAR, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WA.No. 1785 of 2013 ()

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA TOGETHER WITH DOCUMENTS. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. ANNEXURE III : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA. ANNEXURE IV : TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTA.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶24

ANNEXURE R2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 31.03.1987. ANNEXURE R2(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE B.O DATED 25.07.1987.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶29

¶30

W.A. No. 1785 of 2013

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2016.

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Antony Dominic,J.

¶35

The second respondent in W.P.(C No. 22187 of 2009 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein mainly challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Lok Ayukta and P4 order declining to review Ext.P3.

¶36

The appellant joined the service of the Kerala State

¶37

Electricity Board ('KSEB' for short) on 01.09.1978. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2007. Before joining KSEB, he had rendered service for a period of more than five years in a Government of Kerala undertaking by name Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Company Ltd. ('KEL' for short). According to the appellant, in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.R2(a) Board Order dated 12.03.1992, the KSEB had agreed to reckon the service rendered by board employees in Quasi Government organisations, such as KEL, prior to his appointment in KSEB, as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The grievance

¶38

W.A. No.1785/2013 -2-

¶39

voiced by the appellant is that his claim was not favourably considered and that, in essence, was the subject matter of Annexure I complaint filed before the Lok Ayukta. Before the Lok Ayukta, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their statement, in which, though they disputed the assertions made in the complaint, they agreed to consider the claim of the appellant. However, taking the offer to consider the claim of the appellant as an implied admission of his eligibility for reckoning his previous service in KEL, the Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P3 order with a positive direction to reckon the previous service and disburse the monetary benefits. It was this order which was challenged in the writ petition filed by respondents 1 and 2. In the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge upheld the contention of respondents 1 and 2 that the Lok Ayukta had exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore Exts.P3 and P4 orders were set aside. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

¶40

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

Having regard to the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act

¶42

and the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Bernard¹ we are

1 2002(3) KLT 254

W.A. No.1785/2013

-3-

inclined to agree with the learned single Judge that the Lok Ayukta has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a positive direction as contained in Ext.P3.

¶47

In such circumstances, we decline to interfere with the judgment under appeal and order that the direction of the leaned single Judge to consider the claim of the appellant on merits be complied with by respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and a decision thereof shall be communicated to the appellant.

¶48

This appeal is disposed of as above.

¶49

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶50

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶51

¶52

W.A. No.1785/2013 -4-

V.P.Prabhakaran Kartha v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Prabhakaran Kartha v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S.Coconut Palm Beach Garden

M/S.Transworld Hire Purchase India Ltd. Vs the Settlement Commission

State of Kerala Vs K.Pushpadas

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichur Vs M/S.Kallada Wine, Thrissur

K.Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Gopinadhan Nair P.S