Allowed

Ivan Dileepkumar v. Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

Kerala HC4 Apr 2018WP(C)/2066/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a retired state employee for regularization of suspension period falling within retirement date while disciplinary action was finalized. Court directed respondent to make specific order under Staff Regulations after hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to pass orders on regularization of suspension period under Regulation 112, affording opportunity of hearing within two months.

Ivan Dileepkumar Vs Kerala Small Industries… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2066 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

IVAN DILEEPKUMAR, DIVYA BHAVAN, OLD KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 020.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SRI.C.M.EBRAHIM SRI.SHOUKATH HUSAIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC,

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts 10/4/2018

¶15

WP(C).No. 2066 of 2018

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.MDS/ESTT/2015-16 DATED 6/4/2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF THE LETTER OF UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO DHANALAKSHMI BANK DATED 6/4/2015 BY HEAD (E&I)
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/4/2015 ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BY DHANALAKSHMI BANK
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/4/2015 GIVEN TO DHANALAKSHMI BANK BY PETITION
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.MDS/GEN/15-16/47 DATED 9/11/2015 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF THE CHARGESHEET DATED 8/2/16 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/11/2016 IN WP(C) NO.34947/2016
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.VG/24782/15 DATED 4/7/2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/9/2017 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 10/4/2018

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.2066 of 2018-G

¶25

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner, who was working as Head, Sales & Project Division under the 1^st respondent retired from service on 31.5.2017. He was placed under suspension as per Ext.P5 order dated 9.11.2015. Ext.P6 memo of charge was issued thereafter. While continuing on suspension, he retired from service. As per Ext.P8 order dated 4.7.2017 disciplinary action against the petitioner was finalized. The complaint of the petitioner is that period of suspension is not so far regularized despite Ext.P8 order. The petitioner relies on regulation 112 (d) of the Staff Regulations of Kerala State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. which provides for regularization of the period of suspension on reinstatement/retirement from service which reads as follows:

¶28

“When an employee who has been suspended is reinstated in service, or would have been reinstated but for his retirement while under suspension, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order;

¶29

(i) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the employee for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his retirement, as the case may be; and

¶30

(ii) whether or not the said period shall be treated as the period spent on duty for all or for limited purposes.

¶31

2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 representation before the

¶32

respondents requesting to regularize the period of suspension and to

¶33

:2:

¶34

W.P.(C) No.2066 of 2018

¶35

grant him all benefits.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is admitted fact that disciplinary action against the petitioner was finalized as per Ext.P8 order on 4.7.2017. The petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2017, while he was continuing under suspension. The period during which he was placed under suspension is liable to be regularized at least when the respondents finalized the disciplinary action against the petitioner. Regulation 112(b) of the Staff Regulations of Kerala State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. provides for the procedure for regularization of the period of suspension. Respondents have not taken any action on the request of the petitioner in Ext.P9 representation.

¶37

In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to pass orders on the question of regularisation of the period of suspension in tune with regulation 112 (b) of the Staff Regulations of Kerala State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶40

rkc

Ivan Dileepkumar v. Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ivan Dileepkumar v. Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

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

Roy John Vs R. Girija, District Collector, Pathanamthirra

Jelna T.P. Vs State of Kerala

Prakash B L Vs Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure

Leelamma. a Vs Anil Kumar

C.N. Venugopalan Vs Rajiv Kumar, Secretary (Banking), Ministry of Finance

Radhakrishnan L Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board