Dismissed

G.P.Augustine v. State

Kerala HC9 Nov 2016WP(C)/1343/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired librarian, challenges the state's refusal to grant monetary benefits for a 1983 post up-gradation, arguing stoppage since his 1995 retirement. Court issues notice to state to explain why benefits are denied and decides matter adjourned for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to petitioner specifically to be heard on the reasons for confinement of monetary benefits only from the date of the order dated 27.01.2007.

G.P.Augustine Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1343 of 2008 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

G.P.AUGUSTINE, RETIRED LIBRARIAN,

¶8

BHARATH MATHA COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA, RESIDING AT GNALLAN HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

4. THE PRINCIPAL, BHARATH MATA COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.N.SWAMIDASAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN

¶16

SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

WP(C).No. 1343 of 2008 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.04.1987 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.09.1998 IN O.P.NO. 3086/93. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2004 IN O.P.NO. 36195/2001. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 27.01.2007. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.12.2007 IN W.A.NO. 113/2007.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶29

----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.1343 of 2008

¶30

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner retired as a Librarian from Bharath Mata College, Thrikkakara on 31.5.1995. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Government, as per which, even though the library was upgraded as Grade I w.e.f. 1.10.1983 and the post of Librarian was upgraded as Grade I with effect from the same date, the order, however, provides that no monetary benefits would be paid with effect from the date of the up-gradation, namely, 1.10.1983, rather it would be paid only from the date of the order, that is from 27.1.2007.

¶33

Essentially therefore, the case of the petitioner is that even though he had served as a Librarian, which post had been upgraded retrospectively w.e.f. 1.10.1983, he would not get any benefit, since he had retired as early as in 1985 on account of the specific mandate in Ext.P4 that there would be no monetary compensation consequent to such up-gradation.

¶34

I have heard Mr.Jose J.Matheikel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.M.Kurian, the learned

¶35

W.P.(C)No.1343/08

¶36

:-2-:

¶37

counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶38

Even though this writ petition has been filed as early as in 2008, no counter affidavit has been placed on record. I am, therefore, unable to understand the reason that weighed with the Government in confining the benefit of Ext.P4 order only from its date, even though the up-gradation has been given effect to ante from 1983.

¶39

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Government will have to explain as to why Ext.P4 order restricts the payment of monetary benefit from the date of the order and not from the date with effect from which the up-gradation was made, especially because the petitioner asserts that he was all along discharging all the duties and work obligations that apply to a Librarian Grade I, even though his designation was Librarian.

¶40

In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the Government hear the petitioner and then take a decision as to why the monetary benefit cannot be offered to him and as to why Ext.P4 confines the benefit only from the date of the order. For this purpose, I direct the competent Secretary of the first

¶41

W.P.(C)No.1343/08

¶42

:-3-:

¶43

respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and afford him an opportunity of being heard and then further take a decision as to whether the petitioner can be given any monetary benefit consequent to Ext.P4 order. This exercise shall be done by the competent Secretary within an outer period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To facilitate this enquiry, the petitioner is granted liberty to place a copy of this judgment before the competent Secretary, whom I would think would be the Secretary, Higher Education Department, and in the event such a copy is placed before him, the period of four months would be reckoned from the date of such service of judgment.

¶44

In the nature of circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶45

All pending interlocutory applications are closed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶48

ami/10.11.16

¶49

//True copy//

¶50

P.A.to Judge

G.P.Augustine v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.P.Augustine v. State

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

Cochin Cadalas Private Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer

S. Shaik Musthafa Vs Smt. Jayalakshmi

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs the Special Thasildar (La)

P.Vijayakumar Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Sophia A.S Vs Union of India

Jabir V.S. Vs the Deputy General Manager (Hr)