Quashed

K.v.Muraleedharan v. the Managing Committee

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017WP(C)/6689/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order withdrawing a petitioner's promotion and affecting retirement benefits with retrospective effect was issued vitiated by absence of opportunity of hearing. The petition was dismissed fixing the administrator to decide pending representation within two months and direct pension accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P15 order was quashed. Liberty granted to initiate proceedings after notice. Administrator directed to dispose pending representation (Ext.P16) within two months.

K.v.Muraleedharan Vs the Managing Committee — 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

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6689 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.K.V.SAROJINI AMMA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, (FINANCE), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, (RETIRED ON 30.4.2006) RESIDING AT CHETTANNETHU HOUSE, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISETRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR.

¶11

2. THE COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, (SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR, SC SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC

¶13

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

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 6689 of 2009 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.2897/86 DTD.7.7.1989

¶19

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.13695/97 DTD.27.8.1997

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.1816/1997 DTD.12.12.1997

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RP.NO.134/1998 IN OP.13695/97 DTD.5.12.2000.

¶22

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.1795/2001 DTD.13.9.2002.

¶23

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.19.3.2002.

¶24

P7 TRUE COPIES OF THE DELIVERY NOTES

¶25

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-1001/2003 DTD.27.5.2003.

¶26

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.8938/2002 DTD.8.11.2004.

¶27

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B1-3207/02 DTD.7.11.2005.

¶28

P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL ADVICE DTD.11.12.2004.

¶29

P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.6.12.2005.

¶30

P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS A2-4492/2005 DTD.10.3.2006.

¶31

P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS B1-3820/06 DTD.28.4.2006.

¶32

P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS B1-3207/2002 DTD.6.4.2007.

¶33

P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 6.10.2008.

¶34

P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS A1-4030-06 DTD.13.11.2008.

¶35

P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.8.11.2005.

¶36

P19 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.1.8.1996.

¶37

P19(a) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.12.8.1996

¶38

P20 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DTD.21.8.1961.

¶39

P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.12416 IN OP.4127/83-M DTD.3.6.1983.

Msv/

-2-

-2-

WP(C).No. 6689 of 2009 (E)

¶44

P22 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMP.NO.1246/83 IN OP.NO.4127/83-M DTD.10.6.1983.

¶45

P23 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.D.DIS 78/83/GDC DTD.30.5.1983.

¶46

P24 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES REGULATIONS, 1983 REGULATIONS, 1983.

¶47

P25 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR REF: B1-886/74 DTD.3.1.1984.

¶48

P26 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CD/1/84 DTD.14.2.1984. P27 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.B1-1965/2000 DTD.31.3.2001.

¶49

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶50

EXT.E1(a): TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.16 DTD.3.8.1996. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.10 DTD.7.11.2004. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF NOTE FILE VERIFIED PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY. //TRUE COPY//

¶51

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶52

Msv/

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶54

============================== W.P.(C)No.6689 of 2009

¶55

============================== Dated this, the 03^rd day of March, 2017.

¶56

J U D G M E N T

¶57

The writ petitioner impugns Ext.P15 order issued by the Administrator of the Guruvayoor Dewaswam, as per which, his promotion to the post of Deputy Administrator was cancelled and he was sought to be moved to lower post with retrospective effect, after his retirement. The petitioner has impugned the order on various grounds, both factual and legal. However, I do not think it necessary to consider these issues in this writ petition because, I see that Ext.P15 has been issued without hearing the petitioner. This could not have been done, since what has been sought to be done through Ext.P15 was to deny a right that was validly given to the petitioner while he was in service, but to be given effect after his retirement. Even assuming that this could be done, it should have been done only after notice to him.

¶58

In such circumstances, I have no hesitation in

¶59

W.P.(C)No.6689 of 2009 : 2 :

¶60

quashing Ext.P15 order, however, granting liberty to the Administrator of the Guruvayoor Dewaswam, to initiate such action as is proper and if it is required to be taken now. If any such action is proposed to the detriment of the petitioner, it shall be done only after issuing notice to him and after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

¶61

I also see that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P16 representation before the Administrator of the Dewaswam Board, seeking the benefits of time bound Higher Grade promotions, on the allegation that it has been denied to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that this has not been disposed of by the Administrator. If that be so, it is also appropriate and necessary that the Administrator take up Ext.P16 representation of the petitioner forthwith and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within the earliest possible time, but, not later than 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and based on such decision, it shall take all

¶62

W.P.(C)No.6689 of 2009 : 3 :

¶63

consequential directions to fix the petitioner's pension and

¶64

other emoluments.

¶65

This writ petition is thus ordered, leaving the parties

¶66

to suffer their respective costs.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶69

Bb/13/03/2017

¶70

[True copy]

¶71

P.A to Judge

K.v.Muraleedharan v. the Managing Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Muraleedharan v. the Managing Committee

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

E.Velayudhan Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

R.Gopalakrishnan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

M.Syed Alavi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Vasudevan Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Others

The State of Kerala Vs Ramesan