Allowed

Rajan Puthiyandi v. the Secretary

Kerala HC12 Feb 2018WP(C)/2577/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a retired sanitation worker, complained of non-payment of pensionary benefits. The High Court directed the municipality to sanction and disburse terminal dues and monthly pension within three months, with an order for interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to sanction and disburse terminal benefits and monthly pension within three months; 9% interest for delay.

Rajan Puthiyandi Vs the Secretary — 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

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2577 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJAN PUTHIYANDI, S/O.KANNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNIPARAMBA PUTHIYANDI HOUSE, NEAR BRENNEN COLLEGE, DHARMADAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.R.SURENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY, PIN-670 101, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THALASSERY-670 101, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶13

4. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFAIRS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SRI.I.V.PRAMOD,SC R3 & R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 2577 of 2018 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-1208/2017 DATED 4.5.17 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER DATED 23.12.17 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.17 IN WPC.NO.23859/2017.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(C) No.2577 of 2018-V

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner, who retired from service as Sanitation Worker on 30.04.2017, has filed this writ petition complaining that he has not received any of his pensionary benefits.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader on instructions from the 4^th respondent submits that the amount due to the petitioner under the Provident Fund Account would be sanctioned within two weeks. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent Municipality that the amount due to the petitioner in the Provident Fund Account shall be disbursed within a period of two weeks from the date of sanctioning of the same by the 4^th respondent.

¶31

Regarding the other benefits the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submits that no instruction has been received.

¶32

¶33

W.P(C) No.2577 of 2018-V

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Municipality is not making payment to the retired Sanitation Workers. As per Ext.P3 judgment direction was issued to the Municipality in the case of a person who retired from service on 30.11.2016.

¶35

It would appear that there would be persons who retired between 30.11.2016 and 30.04.2017 or thereafter including the petitioner. It is quite possible that there may be persons who retired from service from the Municipality before 30.11.2016, who are denied their terminal benefits.

¶36

The Apex Court and this Court have in a catena of judgments held that pension and pensionary benefits are not a bounty to be disbursed at the will and pleasure of the employer; but the property in the hands of employees. There is no justification in denying and delaying those benefits to pensioners.

¶37

The pensionary benefits are liable to be paid by the Municipality to the contingent workers as soon as they retire from service. The payment of pensionary benefits to contingent workers are governed by the Municipal Contingent Employees (Death Cum Retirement) Benefit Rules, 1977, according to which, each Municipality shall maintain a pension

¶38

fund and remit the prescribed amount towards pension fund every month. The rules also provide that the said fund shall not be appropriated for any

¶39

¶40

W.P(C) No.2577 of 2018-V

¶41

other purpose. In case the 2^nd respondent Municipality has acted in accordance with these rules, these sanitation workers would not have been compelled to approach this Court and they could have been paid their dues as and when they retired from service.

¶42

There shall be a direction to the respondents to maintain a list of retired contingent employees and to make payment of their retirement benefits in the order in which they retired from service and to make the payment due to them based on that without causing any delay, preferably within three months of the retirement. The said payment shall not be delayed any further, in the case of those retired in the year 2016 and 2017 or before that, in the order of their date of retirement.

¶43

There shall be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to sanction and disburse the entire terminal benefits due to the petitioner including DCRG, Commuted value of pension and arrears of D.A within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monthly pension shall be paid to the petitioner from the next month, i.e, March, 2018, onwards.

¶44

In case the payment is not made to the petitioner as directed within a period of three months, the respondent Municipality shall compensate the petitioner with payment of interest w.e.f 1.9.2017 onwards

¶45

¶46

W.P(C) No.2577 of 2018-V

¶47

@ 9% per annum.

¶48

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶51

rtr/

Rajan Puthiyandi v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Puthiyandi v. the Secretary

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

Rajan.T.S Vs Kerala Water Authority

K.a.Baby Vs Coir Board

Joshi. K.R. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

V.Balu Vs Dr.M.a.Lal

Naicymol C.S. Vs Sri. Suku Paul

Kadeeja Adampulan Vs Surendran Kizhakkevalappil