Allowed

M.Unnikrishnan v. Union of India

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016WP(C)/9558/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-payment of pension. This Court directed the employer to forward pension papers and the PF Commissioner to consider eligibility. Upon representation that interim orders were complied with and pension is being paid, the petitions were closed and made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Closing of W.P.(C) Nos. 9558 and 16409 of 2012 and making the interim orders absolute.

M.Unnikrishnan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 9558 of 2012 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. M.UNNIKRISHNAN SREEKRISHNA, VALIYAPARAMBU, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678611 (PERSONAL NO. 04042).

¶8

2. P.SANKARAN

¶9

PATTATH HOUSE, PALISSERY P.O., PALAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-680027, (PERSONAL NO. 02787).

¶10

3. V.V.R.K. WARRIER

¶11

VENOOR VARRIAM, SREELAKSHMI, CHOORAKODE P.O., VALLAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-689643, (PERSONAL NO. 02840).

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. UNION OF INDIA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1.

¶16

2. HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 5/1, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, HASTINGS, KOLKATTA, WEST BENGAL-700022.

¶17

3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER D.K.BLOCK, SECTOR II, SALTLAKE CITY, KOLKATTA, WEST BENGAL-700091.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR R2 BY SRI.T.SANJAY,SC,HINDUSTAN STEELWORKS CO R3 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2016 ALONG WITH WPC 16409/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 9558 of 2012 (T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶24

P1:	COPY OF THE REVISED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTOS OF THE R2 ON 27/6/2002.
P2:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 13/11/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2.
P3:	COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT 9/5/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH FORM 10 D TO THE R3.
P4:	COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT 17/2/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH FORM 10 D TO THE R2.
P5:	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT 16/12/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 33752/2011.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

-----------------------------------------------

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.9558 & 16409 of 2012

¶32

------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Petitioners in both these cases were working under the second respondent and they retired from service on various dates. The writ petitions were filed aggrieved by the non-payment of pension due to them under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. By order dated 08.08.2012 in W.P.(C).No.16409 of 2012, this Court had directed the second respondent to forward the pension papers of the petitioners to the 3^rd respondent and directed the 3^rd respondent to consider the same and pass orders with respect to the eligibility of petitioners for pension. Similarly in W.P.(C).No.9558 of 2012 this Court had passed an interim order dated 13.04.2012 with similar directions.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the parties submits that the interim order was complied with and pension is being paid to the petitioners.

¶36

W.P.(C) Nos.9558 & 16409 of 2012

¶37

¶38

In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are closed in the light of the interim orders and making the

¶39

same absolute.

¶40

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶41

M.Unnikrishnan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Unnikrishnan v. Union of India

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

Ambalapalli Mamo Koya Vs Accountant General and Another

Dr.Sekharan Vs University of Calicut

The Director Vs State of Kerala

Lajish K.M. Vs K.P.S.C.

Saj Flight Services (P) Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B.

N. Krishnankutty & Others Vs Union of India & Others