Allowed

Kishore v. Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2018WP(C)/20057/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition directed public sector respondents to pay the balance gratuity amount with interest to three retired petitioners. The court relied on a precedent and ordered payment within two months of notice, subject to the Special Scheme payment exclusion.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to pay balance gratuity amounts with 6% interest within two months of receiving the judgment copy.

Kishore v. Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 20057 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 KISHORE V., S/O. VIDHYADHARAN N., AGED 59 YEARS, GOWRI VIHAR, MYTHRI NAGAR - 7, KADAPPAKADA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 008.

¶8

2 VIJAYAN PILLAI R., S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, KOCHILAZHATHU PADEETTATHIL, CHITTOOR, PANMANA P.O., CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 583.

¶9

3 SURENDRAN C., S/O. P. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 59 YEARS, SREEKALA MANDIRAM, KALARI, PANMANA, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 583.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI SMT.SHOBA NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LTD., CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 583, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 20057 of 2018

¶16

3. THE INDUSTRIES SECRETARY,

¶17

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

¶18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

4. THE MANAGER,

¶20

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

¶21

DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM,

¶22

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 004.

¶23

5. THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),

¶24

KENDRIYA SHRAM SADAN, OLIMUGHAL,

¶25

KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN -695 001.

¶26

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKAN.

¶27

R2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC

¶28

R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, SC

¶29

R5 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

WP(C).No. 20057 of 2018 (F)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONNEL RELIEVING ORDER DATED 31.05.2017 FROM DUTIES TOWARDS THE FIRST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER (P&A) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT KMML.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTION ORDER W.E.F. 13.05.2017 TOWARDS THE 2ND PETITIONER SENT BY THE EPF COMMISSIONER OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE PERSONNEL RELIEVING ORDER DATED 31.05.2017 FROM DUTIES TOWARDS THE THIRD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE MANAGER (P & A) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT KMML.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE MANAGING GRATUITY TRUST FUND THROUGH LIC TOWARDS THE PRINCIPLES AND THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT KMML TO PAY THE GRATUITY DUE TO IT'S EMPLOYEES.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE LIC MASTER POLICY GRANTED TO THE KMML BY THE LIC TOWARDS THE GRATUITY OF THE KMML EMPLOYEES.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S PENSION PAYMENT ORDER UNDER EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME (EPS-95)
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S PENSION PAYMENT ORDER UNDER EPS-95.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S PENSION PAYMENT ORDER UNDER EPS-95.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 09.08.2017 BY THE KMML PERSONAL OFFICER STATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF GRATUITY, P.F.AND OTHER PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 05.07.2017 BY THE KMML PERSONNEL OFFICER STATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS OF GRATUITY, P.F.AND ANOTHER PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TS	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 31.05.2018 BY THE KMML PERSONAL OFFICER STATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF GRATUITY, PF AND OTHER PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶36

WP(C).No. 20057 of 2018 (F)

¶37

EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER TOWARDS TO ENHANCE THE CEILING OF GRATUITY AS PER THE ORDINANCE OF THE CENTRAL GOVT. W.E.F. 01.06.2016 HAS BEEN MADE TOGETHER BY KMML CITU, INTUC, UTUC, STU, OFFICERS FRONT, OFFICERS CONCLAVE BEFORE THE MD OF THE KMML DATED 26.09.2016.
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 13.01.2017 TOWARDS THE ENHANCEMENT OF GRATUITY LIMIT TO 20 LAKHS EXTENDING TO PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN MADE TOGETHER BY THE KMML-CITU, INTUC, UTUC AND STU BEFORE THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT.
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE PAYMENT GRATUITY (AMENDMENT) ACT DATED 29.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MD OF THE KMML.
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MD OF THE KMML.
EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MD OF THE KMML.
EXHIBIT P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 21.05.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MD OF THE KMML.
EXHIBIT P19	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 23.05.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MD OF THE KMML.
EXHIBIT P20	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 21.05.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT MD OF THE KMML.
EXHIBIT P21	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 34463/2017 DATED 21.11.2017 IN WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P22	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE W.P.(C)NO. 6571/2018 DATED 10.04.2018 IN WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT HAS DECIDED THE SIMILAR MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS.

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No. 20057 of 2018 (F)

¶40

EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.07.2017 OF THE MANAGER (CENTRAL ACCOUNTS) HO, THRISSUR SENT TO THE BRANCH MANAGER OF THE KSFE LTD. TOWARDS SHOWING THE FULL AMOUNT OF GRATUITY PAYABLE TO ONE OF THEIR RETIRED EMPLOYEE VIZ MR.SUDARSANAN AS PER THE ENHANCEMENT OF ORDINANCE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IE W.E.F. 01.06.2016.

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

TS 24.07.2018

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 20057 of 2018 (F)

¶47

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2018

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

In this writ petition, the petitioners seek the following relief:

¶50

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the second and third respondents to pay balance amount of gratuity received from the LIC approximately amounts dues to Rs.15,39,739/- Rs.12,64,868/- and Rs.5,10,587/- towards the first, second and third petitioners each respectively with interest.

¶51

(ii) Direct the second, third and fourth respondents to give the details of statement towards the total amount of Gratuity due to each of the petitioners at the time of their superannuation.

¶52

(iii) Declare that the petitioner are entitled to get balance amount of Rs.15,39,739/-, Rs.12,64,868/and Rs.5,10,587/- each towards the first, second and 3^rd petitioners respectively with interest.

¶53

(iv) Direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider the petitioners request and remains pending before the 2^nd respondent expeditiously.”

¶54

As seen, the issues raised here stand squarely covered in

¶55

the petitioners’ favour by the Full Bench decision in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Cooperative

¶56

W.P.(C). No. 20057 of 2018 (F)

¶57

-2-

¶58

Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., [2017 (4) KLT 276] .

¶59

So I dispose of the writ petition, directing the

¶60

respondents to pay to the petitioners the balance amount, along with interest at the rate of 6% from the

¶61

date the balance amount has fallen due. The authorities shall pay the amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶62

I also clarify that if the respondents have already paid

¶63

the entire amount as per the Special Scheme, the above directions will not apply.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶66

das 20.07.2018

Kishore v. Vs the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore v. Vs the 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

K.v.Babu Vs Union Bank of India

Joseph Pothen Vs the Welfare Fund Inspector

P.A. Mohammed Sahir Vs the Authorized Officer

R.Dhanalakshmi Vs Union Bank of India

Abdul Hasan Vs the Authorised Officer, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

Binukumar.a.K Vs Indian Overseas Bank