Allowed

Latha Bhaskar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2016WP(C)/37206/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition regarding Rule 29(a) of KSR. Pending division bench order allowed sympathetic consideration of representation by the State within three months post-hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be heard expeditiously; State granted time (3 months from certified copy) to consider representation sympathetically and consider representation itself over Rule 29(a).

Latha Bhaskar 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 MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 37206 of 2015 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

LATHA BHASKAR, AGED 58 YEARS W/O.A.K.BHASKARAN, AMBADY, KP 2/213 MNRA-C-193, MUKKALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY

¶9

SMT.A.PARVATHY MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT,

¶13

MINISTRY JACOB JOSEPH, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. DIRECTOR

¶15

DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 37206 of 2015 (A)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.33341/2010 DATED 7.3.2014.

¶24

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.3.2014.

¶25

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION DATED 20.3.2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.37206 of 2015-A

¶32

---------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition contending that Rule 29(a) of Part-III KSR, pertaining to forfeiture of service on resignation has been set aside by Ext.P1 judgment. However, Ext.P1 judgment was taken up in appeal and a Division Bench in W.A.No.949 of 2014, set aside the same, however granting permission to the petitioner to approach the State for a sympathetic consideration.

¶35

In such circumstance, there can be no positive orders passed on the forfeiture of service, but however Ext.P2 representation

¶36

W.P(C). No.37206 of 2015-A

¶37

¶38

could be considered by the State as directed in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment dated 03.12.2015. The same shall be done, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge.

sp/11/01/16

Latha Bhaskar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latha Bhaskar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.I.Chandrasekharan Vs M.G.Rajamanickam, IAS

K.G.George Vs Kerala Fnancial Corpn.

Annamma Varghese Vs Kerala State Social Welfare Board

C.G.Ajay Babu Vs Union Bank of India

K. Devaki Vs State of Kerala

Naijo K.P. Vs the Plantations Corporation of Kerala Ltd.