Disposed

Sidhic N.M. v. Ksfe Limited

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016WP(C)/27859/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure to regularize a suspension period and sanction service benefits, promotions, and increments for a petitioner suspended in connection with a criminal case. The court directed the respondents to consider pending representations, afford a hearing, and render a reasoned decision within six weeks while seeking investigation updates.

What did the court decide?

Directions to competent authority to consider representations, afford hearing, and decide within six weeks, with liberty to seek investigation updates.

Sidhic N.M. Vs Ksfe Limited — 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 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 27859 of 2016 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SIDHIC N.M., SENIOR ASSISTANT, KSFE LIMITED, CHELLANAM BRANCH, KOCHI-682 008.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, "BHADRATHA", MUSEUM ROAD, P.B.NO.510, THRISSUR-680 020.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P & HR), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED, "BHADRATHA", MUSEUM ROAD, P.B.NO.510, THRISSUR-680 020.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:69 5001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,SC ADV. SRI. BENNY P. THOMAS R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARUNKUMAR.M.R. KARANAVAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 27859 of 2016 (F)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.7.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 19.4.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.6.12 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.8.14 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.16 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 27859 of 2016

¶31

==================

¶32

Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the service of the respondent Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE) and while he was so working in that capacity at Thoppumpady branch of the 1^st respondent, he was placed under suspension from service as per Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 26.7.2010 issued by the Managing Director of the 1^st respondent company. This was in consequence of his arrest and remand to judicial custody in Crime No.1989/2010 of

¶34

the Ernakulam Central Police Station, which was registered for offences under Sec.153A of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 52A and 68A of the Copy Right Act. It is averred that the petitioner secured bail as per orders passed by this Court and thereafter, he was reinstated in service as per Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 19.4.2011 issued by the 1^st respondent. That then the petitioner had assumed charge at Kolenchery branch and later transferred to Thoppumpady Branch and was again transferred to the present station at Chellanam.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 1 and

¶36

W.P.(C).27859/2016 - : 2 :-

¶37

2 have not passed any orders regularizing the suspension period of the petitioner It is also averred that the final report in the aforestated Crime No.1989/2010 has not yet been submitted by the Police. It is alleged that due service benefits of the petitioner from the year 2010 have not been sanctioned and disbursed to him and that he has also been denied promotion and that his juniors have been promoted to the next higher grade of Special Grade Assistant overlooking the seniority of the petitioner. It is specifically averred that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner so far by any of the respondents. Regarding the denial of benefits, it is specifically averred that he has been denied increments from 2010, dearness allowance, settlement arrears, medical allowances, increments and promotion to the post of Special Grade Assistant and consequential benefits attached to the said promotion post. That he made Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5 representations before the 2^nd respondent requesting to disburse the service benefits due to him. But the 2^nd respondent has not considered the representations so far. It is in the light of these facts and

¶38

W.P.(C).27859/2016 - : 3 :-

¶39

circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition

¶40

(Civil) with the following prayers:

¶41

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to 1^st and 2^nd respondents to sanction due service benefits to the petitioner, such as promotion to the post of Special Grade Assistant, increments from 2010 onwards, DA arrears, Settlement Arrears, Medical Allowances, incentives as expeditiously as possible;

¶42

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, P4 and P5 as expeditiously as possible;

¶43

iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner.”

¶44

Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶45

would submit on the basis of the instructions from the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied for the time being, if this Court disposes of this matter by issuing a direction to the competent authority among official respondents 1 and 2 to render a considered decision on the request of the petitioner contained in Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5 representations, within a time limit, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶46

Heard Sri.K.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Benny.P.Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for official respondents 1 & 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing

¶47

W.P.(C).27859/2016 - : 4 :-

¶48

for the 3^rd respondent State of Kerala.

¶49

In the light of the facts and circumstances disclosed in the pleadings and materials on record in this case and in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as indicated above, it is ordered that in case Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5 representations are still pending before the respondent authority concerned, then the competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 shall take up the same for consideration, without much delay and will render a considered decision on those representations, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without much delay, at any rate, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 will be at liberty to seek necessary information from the investigating officer in Crime No. 1989/2010 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, as to the present stage of that case and whether the investigation has been completed, etc. and upon getting such request from respondents 1 and 2, the investigating officer concerned will immediately inform

¶50

W.P.(C).27859/2016 - : 5 :-

¶51

the latest position about the said criminal proceedings to the competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 in order to enable them to take a decision on the representations of the petitioner as indicated above. The official respondents 1 and 2 will be at liberty to produce a copy of this judgment along with their letter seeking clarifications before the investigating officer of the aforementioned crime.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶54

P.S. to Judge

Sidhic N.M. v. Ksfe Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidhic N.M. v. Ksfe Limited

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

The Manager Vs Manjesh J.

Kailasnadh N.M. Vs the State Bank of Travancore

Dr.Vinovin V.A Vs Sree Sankaracharya University

Ringi.a.R. Vs State of Kerala

S.Ibrahimkutty Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

T.K.Sasi Vs v.Chandrasekharan