Disposed

R.v.Sivaramakrishnan v. the Cochin Corporation

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016WP(C)/31471/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court issued a direction to the Cochin Corporation to consider the petitioner's old age pension application within three weeks, accepting the Aadhaar card as valid proof of identity instead of a ration card.

What did the court decide?

A direction was issued to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's application and accept Aadhaar card as identity proof within three weeks.

R.v.Sivaramakrishnan Vs the Cochin Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31471 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

R.V.SIVARAMAKRISHNAN

¶8

S/O. VENKITAKRISHNA IYER, C/O. R.P.VENKITAKRISHNAN, 'SREE RAGHU', 47/188, ANGLO INDIAN SCHOOL ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-682 023.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.ANOOP

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE COCHIN CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE (C), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SC SRI.V.V.JOSHI

¶14

R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 31471 of 2016 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SENIOR CITIZEN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY A GAZETTE OFFICER, DATED 25.10.2005.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING PROVIDENT FUND PENSION ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION DATED 14.2.2008.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE AADHAAR CARD BEARING NO.9814 9801 0285 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.4.2016 IN WPC NO.14385/2016. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.2.2016.

¶23

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING REFERENCE NO.PMR/1683/16 DATED 22.6.2016.

¶24

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.340/2013/FIN. DATED 12.7.2013.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.31471 6 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioner is a senior citizen aged nearly 80 years. Petitioner has no landed property or other income except a PF pension of Rs.967/- per month. Petitioner applied for old age pension before the first respondent, evident from Ext.P6 application. Petitioner produced income certificate, Adhar card and copy of the pension sanction order issued in his name by the Employees Provident Fund Organization. In Ext.P6 application it is stipulated that the ration card also should be produced along with the application. According to the petitioner, petitioner has no immovable property and he has

¶34

no residential house in his name and consequentially, he has not secured any ration card. But the petitioner is having an Adhar card. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, even though there is no ration card, Adhar card is enough for establishing the identity, instead of ration card. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that, in spite of

¶35

W.P.(C) No.31471 6 of 2016

¶36

¶37

earnest efforts of the petitioner, Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner is not considered by the 4^th respondent. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed

¶38

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first respondent and learned Government Pleader, I think it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to consider Ext.P6 within a time frame, taking note of the identity produced by the petitioner namely, the Adhar card.

¶39

Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take on Board Ext.P6 application and take a decision on the same, accepting the identity of the petitioner, namely, the Adhar card, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶43

dlk/13/10/

R.v.Sivaramakrishnan v. the Cochin Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.v.Sivaramakrishnan v. the Cochin Corporation

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

Dias Davis.M Vs Susheel Candran

P Rajendran Vs Sri Antony Chacko

M. Ahamed Kabeer Vs Antony Chacko

K.K.Nazar Vs Sadique Ali

K.P.Paul Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Sunena Chandran Vs State of Kerala