Allowed

James Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2016WP(C)/6043/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court converted a prior interim order into a final order, holding that retired employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited are entitled to Dearness Allowance at the rate fixed by the Government under Rule 189(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act.

What did the court decide?

The interim order made absolute; petitioners to be paid Dearness Allowance and balance arrears within four months along with retirement benefits.

James Joseph 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6043 of 2014 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JAMES JOSEPH, ANTHEENAT HOUSE, PAREEKKANNI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, (SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

¶8

2. V.P.SIVADAS KUMAR, MUTHACHANKANDY HOUSE, MARYKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE-673012, (SENIOR DRIVER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

¶9

3. V.P.JOYKUTTY, VALIYAKALA, MUDADIYIL, ULLANNOOR P.O., VIA KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA (ATTENDER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

¶10

4. T.RATNAPPAN VADAKKEPERUMPARA CMC 21, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA (ATTENDER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM)

¶11

5. REJI CHERIAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, THURUTHEPARAMBU ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI-682021 (BRANCH MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

¶12

6. V.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, VAZHUTHOOR, SREEPADAM, MYTHRI NAGAR, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121. (ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

¶13

7. M.DEVADASAN, SMRITHI, PANDIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

.....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 6043 of 2014 (E)

¶18

8. M.V.AVARACHAN, MARANGATTU HOUSE, PUTHUPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686673 (SALES OFFICER, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM).

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶20

RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶22

2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-682020, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶23

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No. 6043 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIO -------	NER(S)' -------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT	P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 368/2012/CO-OP. DT.6-7- 2012.
EXHIBIT	P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.732/102/CO-OP.DT.20-12- 2012.
EXHIBIT	P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.396/2013/CO-OP.DT.19- 06-2013.
EXHIBIT	P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED ON 14-2-2013 AND 5-8-2013 RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT	P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE DIFFERENCE/LOSS CAUSED TO THE PETITIONERS DUE TO THE NON IMPLEMENTATION OF DA AS PER GOVERNMENT ORDERS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT	P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

----------------	-------
EXHIBIT R2(A):	PHOTOCOPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER, G.O.(P)
	NO.37/2001/FIN.DATED 18/1/2011, REFERRED TO IN THE
	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.

¶31

/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE

¶32

¶33

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 6043 of 2014

¶35

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

1.The petitioners are the retired employees of the 2^nd

¶38

respondent Federation. They retired from service on

¶39

the following dates;

¶40

1^stpetitioner	30.11.2012
2^ndpetitioner	30.11.2012
3^rdpetitioner	30.11.2012
4^thpetitioner	30.11.2012
5^thpetitioner	30.04.2013
6^thpetitioner	30.04.2013
7^thpetitioner	30.06.2013
8^thpetitioner	30.06.2013

¶41

They have approached this Court on account of the denial of the Dearness Allowance at par with the rate fixed by the Government to their employees.

¶42

2.In fact, this Court considered the issue in detail and by interim order dated 26.06.2014, directed the 2^nd respondent to pay 50% of the Dearness Allowance payable to the petitioners within a month.

¶43

3.I do not find any reason to vary the aforesaid order. It

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 6043 of 2014

¶45

..2..

¶46

is to be noted that as per Rule 189(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act, all employees of the societies shall be eligible for Dearness Allowance at the rate allowed by the Government to their employees. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interim order dated 26.06.2014 has to be made absolute.

¶47

4.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows;

¶48

The interim order dated 26.06.2014 is made absolute.

¶49

The petitioners shall be paid Dearness Allowance and balance arrears within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

The Dearness Allowance component to be paid on the petitioners have an impact on the retirement benefits given to the petitioners and certainly, such benefits shall also be given to the petitioner within a further period of four months.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶53

bka/-

James Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Joseph 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.B.Sudheer Vs Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee

Minitha Vs Kodanchery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Maria Theresa Hospital Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Mercy C.G. Vs Libi C Mathews

The St.Mary'S Hospital, Manarcadu Vs K.K.Mathan

A.Muhammed Kunju Vs the Puthiyakavu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.