Partly allowed

C.R. Indukumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016WP(C)/13214/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by retired and serving lab assistants seeking approval of payoff fixation statements and time-bound higher grade benefits. Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider pending representation and decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent to consider pending representation (Ext.P-8) and grant a time-bound decision within two months.

C.R. Indukumar Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13214 of 2016 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. C.R. INDUKUMAR, LAB ASSISTANT, PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S COLLEGE, MATTANNUR -670 702

¶8

2. N.V.RAMAKRISHNAN, LAB ASSISTANT (RTD), PAZHASSI RAJA N.S.S COLLEGE, MATTANNUR -670 702

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HIGHER EDUCATION), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.M.G JUNCTION,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003

¶14

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE- 673 001

¶15

4. THE PRINCIPAL, PAZHASSI RAJA NSS COLLEGE, MATTANNUR- 670 702

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAMA PRASAD UNNI R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 13214 of 2016 (B)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 1ST PETITIONER NO. E/3050/82 DATED 24.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE NSS COLLEGE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE

¶23

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. G/1532/84 DATED 19.06.1984 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶24

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER NO. E/3048/82 DATED 24.04.1982 ISSUED BY THE NSS COLLEGE, CENTRAL COMMITTEE

¶25

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PAY FIXATION STATEMENT NO. G1/ESTT/NTS/385/2011 DATED 16.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶26

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2011

¶27

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FIXATION OF PAY IN RESPECT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2011

¶28

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KU/SP10/RTI/1571-1580(10 DATED 07.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KANNUR UNIVERSITY.

¶29

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.03.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 13214 of 2016

¶38

==================

¶39

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶40

The case projected in this Writ Petition is as follows: The 1^st petitioner is serving as Lab Assistant in the 4^th respondent Pazhassi Raja N.S.S. College, Mattannur, which is under the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Kozhikode. The 2^nd petitioner was also previously serving in the same college as Lab Assistant, from where he has retired from service on 30.5.2015. Both the petitioners were appointed in the cadre of Last Grade Servants and they were later promoted as Lab Assistants. The petitioners have not passed the Attenders' Test. The petitioners were granted pay scale as per the pay revision order. But that pay fixation statement pursuant to the 9^th pay revision order drawn by the 4^th respondent was not approved by the 3^rd respondent Deputy Director of Education, Kozhikode. That despite the exemption from passing Attenders' Test granted by the Kannur University as per Ext.P-7, the 3^rd respondent did not grant time bound higher grade benefits to the petitioners. In respect of those grievances the 1^st petitioner has submitted Ext.P-8 representation dated 9.3.2016

¶41

W.P.(C).13214/16 - : 2 :-

¶42

before the 2^nd respondent Director of Collegiate Education, Thiruvananthapuram, by requesting to grant benefits as admissible by law. It is also pointed out that the 2^nd respondent has also submitted similar petition before the 2^nd respondent. But that the said respondent has not taken any decision on the above said representations of the petitioners and consequently, they have not taken any steps to grant the benefits as stipulated in the 9^th pay revision order, it is averred. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers;

¶43

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to approve Ext.P5 and P6 pay fixation statement of petitioners drawn by the 4^th respondent.

¶44

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P8 petition submitted by the 1^st petitioner expeditiously.

¶45

iii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to get time bound Higher Grade promotion as stipulated by the 9^th Pay Revision Order.”

¶46

Heard Sri.Joshi.N.Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.P.Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent Pazhassi Raja N.S.S.College.

¶47

In the facts and circumstances of this case as disclosed

¶48

W.P.(C).13214/16 - : 3 :-

¶49

in the pleadings of the Writ Petition, it is ordered that, in case the representations of the petitioners as per Ext.P-8 are still pending consideration, then the 2^nd respondent will take up the same for consideration without much delay. The petitioners will be at liberty to submit any supplemental representations in order to advance their submissions and contentions and this, they may produce along with certified copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent will consider the submissions and contentions in Ext.P-8 representation and other representations of the petitioners as referred to the above and will take a considered decision thereon after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to petitioners either in person or through their authorised representative. Decision in this regard shall be taken by the 2^nd respondent without much delay at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The 2^nd respondent shall communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners without much delay.

¶50

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶51

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. To Judge.

¶52

W.P.(C).13214/16 - : 4 :-

C.R. Indukumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.R. Indukumar v. the 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

K.P.Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Mahakavi Kumaranasan Smaraka Sangham Vs Binu Thachadi

K. Sreelatha Vs Government of Kerala

C v Thankamma Vs the Project Officer

Lasitha.D Vs State of Kerala