Disposed

H.Pradeep v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Aug 2016WP(C)/15438/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns a former employee of KINFRA who resigned in July 2010 but received payment for gratuity only, with other dues pending. The High Court directed the corporation to consider the petitioner's representation for unpaid benefits within six weeks while entertaining his federal government order applicability claim.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within six weeks and afford an opportunity of being heard.

H.Pradeep 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

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20168TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15438 of 2013 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

H.PRADEEP, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 54/472, PADAKKASSERIL, KARIAT VAYAL, ATHANICKAL EAST, WEST HILL.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 005.

¶8

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.VICTOR ANTONY NOONE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (A STATUTORY BODY OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA) KINFRA HOUSE, 31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 010.

¶12

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶13

SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY SRI.P.V.ALIAS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 15438 of 2013 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF LEAVE PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.7.2010.

¶20

P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.15438 of 2013

¶27

Dated this the 30^th day of August, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner joined in the service of the 2^nd respondent corporation (viz. Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, KINFRA) on 25.10.1999 pursuant to Ext.P3 appointment order dated 14.10.1999 and Ext.P4 posting order dated 21.10.1999. It is averred that the appointment was provisional in nature and also for three years. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent corporation had extended the period of employment of the petitioner and re-fixed the emoluments and scale of pay by Ext.P5 letter dated 11.10.2002. By Ext.P6 letter dated 25.10.2003, the contract of employment was further extended and had also re-fixed the emoluments. Later, the period of employment was extended by the 2^nd respondent for three years and on completion of the period of employment, 2^nd respondent appointed him as Deputy Manager (Technical) on fresh contract basis for a period from 17.10.2006 to 31.03.2009 as per Ext.P7 proceedings dated 16.10.2006. Yet again the 2^nd respondent had appointed the petitioner as Manager (Technical) for the period

¶30

W.PC.No.15438/13

¶31

¶32

from 01.07.2008 to 31.03.2009 with revised emoluments as per Ext.P8 letter dated 24.06.2008. The term of employment was further extended for three years from 01.04.2009 as per Ext.P9. It is pointed out as per Ext.P12 Government Order, G.O.(MS) No.181/2010/ID dated 21.08.2010, it was ordered by the Government that to accord sanction to the recommendation of the 49^th Board meeting of respondent, KINFRA held on 28.10.2008 to revise scale of pay of officers of KINFRA and the pay revision provided by Ext.P12 G.O is applicable to the permanent and contract employees of respondent, KINFRA.

¶33

Thereafter, the petitioner got relieved from service with effect from 31.07.2010 pursuant to his resignation. It is averred that the 2^nd respondent did not respond or act upon the petitioner's repeated request to disburse the amounts legally due to him on account of his unpaid service benefits for which had submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 09.09.2010 addressed to the 2^nd respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P10 representation, the 2^nd respondent had paid 2,21,094/- by cheque bearing No.062485₹ dated 17.09.2010 on account of the gratuity payable to the petitioner and that it was assured that his other request contained in Ext.P9 will be looked into and decision on those

¶34

W.PC.No.15438/13

¶35

¶36

aspects could be informed to the petitioner in due course. This is so informed as per Ext.P11 letter dated 18.09.2010. After the issue of Ext.P11 letter dated 18.09.2010, the 2^nd respondent has not issued any communication to the petitioner, in breach of the assurance made in Ext.P11. It is in this context that the petitioner was constrained to submit Ext.P2 representation dated 08.10.2010 requesting to release the amounts due to him with interest thereon. The 2^nd respondent has not passed any orders on Ext.P2. It is in this circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with following prayers:

¶37

“ a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 and release the amount legally due to the petitioner as arrears of salary, gratuity, encashment of earned leave, festival allowance etc. at the earliest and within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court; and

¶38

b) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶39

Heard Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent KINFRA and the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent, State.

¶40

W.PC.No.15438/13

¶41

¶42

In the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings and materials on record in this case and more particularly the limited prayer made in this writ petition, it is ordered that the Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent shall immediately take up for consideration Ext.P2 representation dated 08.10.2010, without any further delay and shall take a decision thereon, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either in person or authorized representative if any, within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The specific contention of the petitioner that Ext.P12 Government Order is applicable to the petitioner's case also for disbursing the unpaid service benefits, should also be considered by the 2^nd respondent while taking a decision as directed above.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/- (ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE)

¶45

/TRUE COPY/

¶46

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶47

H.Pradeep v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Pradeep 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saraswathy Prabha a. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sujatha J Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Sasi Vs v.Chandrasekharan

Mary Jasmine Vs Mafjin

P.Muthuswamy Vs Union of India

Neethu A.T. Vs University of Calicut