Disposed

N.Ramaswamy Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/242/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought payment of retirement benefits and challenged withholding of DCRG dues owed to KSFE. The court noted respondent unavailability, clarified that withholding was directed for petitioner's liability to KSFE, and directed respondents to process remaining undisputed benefits without delay.

What did the court decide?

Paid undisputed retirement benefits within two months; directed respondents to withhold amounts only if petitioner consents or under Rule 124 Part III of KSR.

N.Ramaswamy Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 242 of 2008 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.RAMASWAMY PILLAI, (RETD.MECHANIC,KSRTC), S/O.NATESAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, KOLLAMPARAMBU, PAZHAVEEDU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM.

¶13

4. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KSFE LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

R1-3 BY SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC

¶15

R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 242 of 2008 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P2.1059/2007/KYLM DATED 24/4/2007 ISSUED BY THE R3 TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.RR/3045 & 4826 DATED 13/2/2007 ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE R3.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.242 of 2008-D

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (`KSRTC' for short) to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner, including the amount towards welfare fund, P.F account, DCRG, monthly pension, etc. The petitioner also challenges Ext.P2 order dated 13.02.2007 by which the Special Deputy Tahsildar (R.R) directed A.T.O of Kayamkulam depot to withhold a sum of Rs.85,820/from the DCRG payable to the petitioner, with intimation to the Special Deputy Tahsildar (R.R), KSFE Ltd., Alappuzha. This court had by order dated 3.01.2008 directed respondents 1 to 3 to pay the provident fund and staff welfare fund amounts to the petitioner within a period of two months.

¶32

Today when the case came up for hearing, there is no representation for either of the parties.

¶33

Ext.P2 is a letter from the KSFE and the amount directed to be withheld, appears to be the amount due from the

¶34

W.P(C) No.242 of 2008-D 2

¶35

petitioner towards KSFE. Since there is no counter affidavit from the parties, it is not clear whether the petitioner had agreed for recovery of any amount from his DCRG towards any liabilities to the KSFE. The petitioner's contention in the writ petition as against Ext.P2 is that no amount from the DCRG can be attached in view of Rule 124 Part III of KSR and that revenue recovery proceedings will not lie, in order to recover the amount from the DCRG.

¶36

At any rate, Ext.P4 was only a direction to withhold the amount which was due to the KSFE from the petitioner. In case consent is obtained from the petitioner to effect recovery from the DCRG, the respondents would be free to recover the liabilities towards KSFE as provided under Ruling No.1 below Rule 3 Part III of KSR.

¶37

In case any further amount is found due to the petitioner, towards his retirement benefits which remains to be paid, the respondents shall take appropriate steps to disburse the same without any further delay.

¶38

With the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶41

rtr/

N.Ramaswamy Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramaswamy Pillai v. 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

George Vs Kerala State Handicrafts Apex

P.I.Abraham Vs Kerala Co.Op.Tribunal

Rama Lyer Vs Secretary to Government

Beeran Vs Shaiju

Joseph Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. Eriam Branch

Marutharode Grama Panchayath Vs the State of Kerala