Dismissed

Secretary to Government of Kerala Social v. S.Balakrishnan and Another

Kerala HC29 Mar 2016WP(C)/1536/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dismissing a petition challenging its jurisdiction. It held that the Lok Ayukta had jurisdiction to consider the respondent's claim for pensionary benefits as such matters are specifically excluded from the Second Schedule of the Act, unlike general service disputes.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed, and the order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta is upheld.

Secretary to Government of Kerala Social Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/9TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1536 of 2007 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. S. BALAKRISHNAN, MAYURAM, HOUSE NO.33/95, NEAR LAW COLLEGE,

¶11

P.O. MARIKUNNU, CALICUT-673 012.

¶12

2. SECRETARY,

¶13

KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.

¶14

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1536 of 2007

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF GOVT.LETTER NO.5041/A1/99/SWD DATED 9.8.1999. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.3.2006 IN COMPLAINT NO.1038/03 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT LOK AYUKTA. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF LETTER NO.1929/97/SWD DATED 25.11.1998.

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

PS TO JUDGE

¶22

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶23

W.P(C).No. 1536 of 2007

¶24

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th March, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the State of Kerala, challenging the orders issued by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in a complaint preferred by the first respondent herein. The contention of the petitioner is to the effect that the Lok Ayukta, under Section 8(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, does not have the jurisdiction to consider a complaint in the nature of the one preferred by the petitioner. Section 8(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act provides that the Lok Ayukta or the Upa Lok Ayukta shall not conduct any investigation in the case of complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule. Clause (d) of the Second Schedule includes action taken in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants but, not including actions relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the orders passed by the Lok Ayukta being one involving the question of qualifying service, the Lok Ayukta would not have entertained the complaint filed by the first respondent.

¶28

¶29

WP(C).1536/07

¶30

Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶31

On going through the order passed by the Lok Ayukta, it is clear that what has been considered by the Lok Ayukta was the matter of entitlement of the first respondent for pensionary claims as raised by him in a complaint. The complaint was preferred by the first respondent after retirement from service. The Lok Ayukta, on examining the service book of the first respondent, found that his date of entry into service was recorded as 20.2.1965 and there was no reason shown for postponing the start of qualifying service to 1.7.1968. It was noticed that the initial entry in service being as Electrician in Balamandir, Kozhikode and the State having no case that the first respondent's service was not Government service, there was no reason why the first respondent should not have been given the benefit of counting the qualifying service with effect from 20.2.1965. The learned Government Pleader has also brought to my notice a decision of this Court reported in Director, Economic and Statistics v. Subramanya Pillai [2007(3) KLT 366] in support of the contention that service matters could not be agitated before the Lok Ayukta. However, on going through the contents of the order of the Lok Ayukta, it is clear that the complaint preferred by the petitioner was with regard to a claim for pension which is specifically excluded from the provisions of the Second Schedule.

¶32

¶33

WP(C).1536/07

¶34

In the above circumstances, I find that the complaint was maintainable before the Lok Ayukta. The order under challenge and the findings of fact rendered therein do not suffer from any legal infirmity. The same is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶36

vgs29/3

Secretary to Government of Kerala Social v. S.Balakrishnan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary to Government of Kerala Social v. S.Balakrishnan and Another

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

K.Divakaran Vs K.Ravikumaran

Mazhuvanor Grama Panchayath Vs Sinthil K.M.

T.v.Susheela Vs State of Kerala

Kunnummal Pavithran Vs the Village Officer

The Manager, Wallardie Estate Vs the Genral Secretary, Peermade Thottam T

Anand Elamon Vs State of Kerala