Allowed

V.K.Radhamony v. Managing Director

Kerala HC7 Mar 2017WP(C)/10690/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition questioning a pay revision order that reduced the petitioners salary. Court refused to quash the order but directed respondents to consider a representation from the petitioner within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to submit representation to 1st respondent within 15 days; 1st respondent directed to consider it within 3 months after hearing.

V.K.Radhamony Vs Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10690 of 2010 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

V.K.RADHAMONY, PART TIME SWEEPER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.07.2011 IN I.A.NO. 11002 OF 2011.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH, S.C ADDL. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MABLE C.KURIAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 10690 of 2010 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 501/2005/FIN. DATED 25.11.2005. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2007.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.08.2009.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO. 262/07/(59)/FIN. DATED 19.06.2007. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2010.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶30

WP(C) No.10690 of 2010

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2017

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner asserts that she was working as a casual Part

¶34

Time Sweeper and she claims that as per Exts.P1 & P3 she was entitled to a consolidated salary at the rate of Rs.2,100+Dearness Allowance. Her grievance is that in spite of Ext.P3, which is an order granting her the said consolidated salary, she was only paid Rs.1,250+Dearness Allowance, because the 1^st respondent issued a subsequent order revising her scale retrospectively with effect from 01.08.2009. She has impugned Ext.P3 order on various grounds in this writ petition.

¶35

I have heard Sri.Krishnaprasad, the learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶37

WP(C) No.10690 of 2010

¶38

¶39

The petitioner is relying on Ext.P3 order, wherein it is clearly mandated that her consolidated pay was revised with effect from 01.08.2009 as Rs.2,100+DA. However, by a subsequent order namely Ext.P3, her pay has been modified and she has been directed to be regularised in the service with only a consolidated pay of Rs.1,250+DA and this revision is directed to take effect from 15.12.2009.

¶40

I am not sure what was the reason that impelled the 1^st respondent to issue Ext.P5 order, at least nothing is placed on record to show why this was done. However, it is discernible from Ext.P5 that it is issued based on a Government Order, which is referred to therein. Whatever be the reason, I am of the firm view that before Ext.P5 could have been issued it was only fair and just that the petitioner should have been heard. This also has not been done. However, it is more than 7 years after the order has been issued and I am not sure if any purpose should be now served in quashing it for this ground alone. However, the petitioner deserve leniency and a further opportunity and I am, therefore, of the view that she should be allowed to represent to

¶41

WP(C) No.10690 of 2010

¶42

¶43

respondents 1 & 2 against Ext.P5, which can then be considered by them in its proper perspective.

¶44

In such circumstance, I dispose of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to cause a representation to be preferred before the 1^st respondent within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and if such representation is received by the 1^st respondent within the time granted herein, he will be obligated in terms of this judgment to consider and conclude on its contents, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date on which the representation is made.

¶45

The writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶46

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶47

//True Copy// P.A. to Judge

¶48

sp/09/03/17

V.K.Radhamony v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Radhamony v. Managing Director

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

M/S.Integrated Eco Resorts and Farms Pvt. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Wilfred Culas Vs Dist.Collector, Tvm

Reju Joseph Vs Thalappalam Grama Panchayath

Sandhya Perera Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

P.R.Binu Vs State of Kerala

Dr.P.v.Madusoodhanan Vs State of Kerala