Disposed

Babu Mathew v. the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016WP(C)/27380/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation for accommodation in nearby vacancies or for travel leave due to a road accident. It directed the respondent to consider a request for home centre posting if the retirement age is enhanced to 60 years via due process.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file representation for accommodation or leave; direction to consider home centre posting if retirement age enhanced to 60 years.

Babu Mathew Vs the Kerala State Financial… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27380 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. BABU MATHEW ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPIRSES LTD, MAIN BRANCH, PALA, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT THEKKILAKATTIL HOSUE, PALAKKATTUMALA P.O., MARANGATTUPALLY VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 635.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020.

¶11

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE, BHADRATHA, P.B.NO.510, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020.

¶12

R BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-082016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 27380 of 2016 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' E -----------------------	XHIBITS
EXT.P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE APPINTMENT ORDER DATED 11/7/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE TRNSFER ORDER DATED 19/7/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE TRNSFER NORMS PUBLISHED DATED 29/3/2012 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 1/5/2010 AND 8/10/2010.
EXT.P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 8/10/2010
EXT.P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/7/2016 IN WPC NO.24503/2016.
EXT.P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/7/2016.
EXT.P8.	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.36072/P DATED 10/8/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------------------	EXHIBITS NIL -------------

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

avk

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C).No.27380 of 2016

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this case, the petitioner intends to submit a representation before the competent authority of the respondent KSFE, pointing out that the impugned decision to transfer him may be re-considered and that he may be accomodated in any of the nearby vacancies or within any branches which is 20-30 kms away from his residence at Pala and that leave may be granted to the petitioner to avail that course of action, without prejudice to the contentions in this W.P.(C). It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has suffered a serious road accident, which makes long distance travel quite arduous and difficult and further that he has hardly nine months to retire from service and therefore the norms contained in Clause 11 of Ext.P-3 norms is to be respected by the respondents,etc. In view of the submisison, liberty is granted to the petitioner as aforesaid. Needless to say, it is for the respondent to ensure that such representation filed by the petitioner, may be considered by the competent authority

¶25

W.P.(C).No.27380 of 2016 2

¶26

of the respondent without much delay. It is made clear that the joining of the petitioner at the new station pursuant to impugned Ext.P-2 transfer order will be without prejudice to the above said contentions of the petitioner and will be subject to any decision that may be taken by the competent authority of the respondents as indicated above.

¶27

It is also brought to notice of this Court that various litigations are pending before this Court on the issue of enhancement of the retirement age of the officials of the company from the present superannuation age of 58 years to 60 years and the Board of Directors have taken a favourable decision to recommend to the State Government for approval for enhancing the retirement age to 60 years. The State Government had rejected the said request of the respondent company and the matter was challenged in various pending writ proceedings before this Court and that this Court has rescinded the above rejection order passed by the Government and has remitted the matter to the Government to take a decision afresh and the writ proceedings are kept pending before this Court awaiting the decision of the State Government in that regard. In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has

¶28

W.P.(C).No.27380 of 2016 3

¶29

already completed the age of 57 as of now, it is ordered that in case the retirement age of the officials of the respondent company is enhanced to 60 years, through due process and if such decision is enforced before the attainment of 58 years by the petitioner, then the request of the petitioner for posting to his home centre at Palai or nearby place should be favourably considered by the 3^rd respondent at least during the general transfer that may be effected in March to May, 2017. This direction made by this Court is to be complied with by the 3^rd respondent only if the representation as indicated in the preceding paragraph hereinabove to be submitted by the petitioner for transfer and posting to any of the existing vacancies near to Palai and other nearby areas is not acceded to by the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

With these observations and directions, this writ petition (civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶33

//TRUE COPY//

¶34

PA TO JUDGE

¶35

avk

Babu Mathew v. the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Mathew v. the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

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

Thulasibhai @ Thulasi Vs the Village Officer

George Varghese Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Fr.Joseph Tholath Vs the Asst. Educational Officer

Dr.Vinovin V.A Vs Sree Sankaracharya University

Kailasnadh N.M. Vs the State Bank of Travancore

The Manager Vs Manjesh J.