Disposed

S.Ibrahimkutty v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC26 Aug 2016WP(C)/28178/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala HC directed the KSEB to process the petitioner's request for counting prior service rendered at the Kerala Water Authority for pension computation within two months, after granting an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation regarding prior service and render a decision within two months.

S.Ibrahimkutty Vs the Kerala State… — 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 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/4TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 28178 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O. SHAUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT AL. FIRDOUSE, NJARAKKAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691601.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

¶11

2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.

¶12

3. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

R1,2 BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC R3 BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2016, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.30710/2014 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 28178 of 2016 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2013 SANCTIONING PENSION TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.DATED 2.2.2001
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 4.12.2000
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.3.1996 IN OP.NO.8259/1991 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.1.1999 IN W.A.NO.1422/1996 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.3.2000 IN OP.NO.10540/1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.200 IN OPNO.10540/1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/10/2011 IN WPC NO.6536/2007 OF THIS JON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.6.2014 IN W.A.NO.920/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.DATED 30.1.2016
EXHIBIT P12;	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------NIL.

¶20

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

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

W.P.(C).No. 28178 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner while working as Sub Engineer in the 1^st respondent Kerala State Electricity Board had retired from the service of that organization on attaining superannuation age on 31.10.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that before he had joined the respondent KSEB, he had earlier worked in the Kerala Water Authority as Pump Operator for 5 years and 8 months. The petitioner was granted his pensionary benefits as per Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 27.12.2013. But the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not counted his prior service in the Kerala Water Authority, while calculating his pensionary benefits due from the respondent KSEB. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner is stated to have filed Ext.P-12 representation dated 20.7.2016 before the 1^st respondent KSEB requesting to count his previous service of 5 years and 8 months rendered by him in the Kerala Water Authority and to re-fix the pensionary benefits on that basis. The petitioner places reliance on the judgments of this Court in Exts.P-5, P-6 and P-8 to P-10 to advance his submissions and contentions. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner has filed

¶28

W.P.(C).28178/16 - : 2 :-

¶29

the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following reliefs:

¶30

(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to issue necessary orders counting the 5 years and 8 months of service rendered by the petitioner in the Kerala Water Authority for computing pensionary benefits on his retirement.

¶31

(ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered by him in the Kerala Water Authority for a period of 5 years and 8 months as qualifying service for computing pensionary benefits on his retirement from the post of Sub Engineer in the KSEB on 31.10.2013,”

¶32

Apart from raising his contentions on the basis of the pleadings and materials on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the instructions from the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied for the time being, if this Court disposes of the matter with appropriate direction to the 1^st respondent KSEB to render a considered decision on Ext.P-12 representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶33

Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri.K.S.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board appearing for the respondent KSEB and Sri.George Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority appearing for R-3.

¶34

In view of the facts and circumstances projected in the pleadings on record in this case as well as taking into account the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, it is ordered that

¶35

W.P.(C).28178/16 - : 3 :-

¶36

the competent authority among respondents 1 and 2 shall take up Ext.P-12 representation for consideration, without much delay, and render a considered decision thereon, after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, either in person or through his authorised representative, if any, within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. While rendering the decision as directed above, the competent authority of the respondent Board will advert to and consider various contentions and submissions urged by the petitioner, more particularly, the said Authority will also duly take into account the submissions and contentions made by the petitioner on the basis of the judgments of this Court as per Exts.P-5, P-6 and P-8 to P-10, etc. After taking the decision as directed above, the respondent Board authorities will communicate the decision so taken by them to the petitioner without much delay.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

P.S. to Judge

¶40

W.P.(C).28178/16 - : 4 :-

S.Ibrahimkutty v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ibrahimkutty v. the Kerala State Electricity Board 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

Ringi.a.R. Vs State of Kerala

Sidhic N.M. Vs Ksfe Limited

The Manager Vs Manjesh J.

T.K.Sasi Vs v.Chandrasekharan

Sujatha J Vs State of Kerala

Saraswathy Prabha a. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board