Allowed

P.E.Ismil v. Aluva Municipality

Kerala HC3 Jan 2018WP(C)/39401/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-payment of retirement benefits by the Aluva Municipality despite sanctions. The Court held that mandatory rules prohibit diversion of pension funds and directed payment within three months with interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pay entire benefits sanctioned in Ext.P1 within 3 months; interest at 6% p.a. from date of Ext.P1 if further delay occurs.

P.E.Ismil Vs Aluva Municipality — 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 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 13TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 39401 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.E.ISMAIL, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERAMAM KARA, KADUNGALOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, MUPPATHUPADAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 110.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR

¶9

SMT.V.B.SANTHINI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA,

¶13

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:683 101.

¶14

2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN:695 001.

¶16

3. THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶18

LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,

¶19

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695 001.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, S.C

¶21

R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO. 39476 OF 2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Msd.

¶24

WP(C).No. 39401 of 2017

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER COMMUNICATED BY

¶28

THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.1.2017.

¶29

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO. 31160/2015 DATED 2.12.2015 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C) Nos.39401 & 39476 of 2017

¶37

------------------------------------- Dated this the 03^rd day of January, 2018

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioners in these cases retired

¶40

from the 1^st respondent Municipality while working as sanitation workers on 31.03.2016 and 30.06.2016 respectively.

¶41

Even though Ext.P1 order was issued on 31.01.2017 and 06.02.2017 in respect of petitioners 1 and 2 sanctioning their retirement benefits which includes monthly pension, commuted value of pension and Death Cum Retirement Gratuity, the petitioners submit that no amount is paid so far except monthly pension.

¶42

The 1^st respondent filed a statement.

¶43

According to which the Municipality is faced with acute shortage of funds and hence the payments could

¶44

W.P.(C) Nos.39401 & 39476 of 2017

¶45

¶46

not be made so far. It is stated that the

¶47

Municipality has not received pension contribution from the Director of Urban Affairs and as of now, Rs.3 crores is due to the Municipality. It is also stated that, the contingent workers who retired prior to petitioners are also entitled to get their benefits and payment can be made only maintaining priority.

¶48

As per Rule 6 of Municipal Contingent

¶49

Employees Death cum retirement benefit Rules 1977 (`hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules) the entire financial liability for payment of retirement benefits of contingent employees of the Municipalities shall be

¶50

met by the Municipal Councils. Under rule 7 each of the Municipal Council has to open a Municipal Contingent Employees Pension Fund for granting the benefits to the employees. The Municipal Council was bound to remit the pension contribution to the fund every month. The rules specifically provides that the pension fund shall not be diverted for any other

¶51

W.P.(C) Nos.39401 & 39476 of 2017 3

¶52

purpose.

¶53

In case the 1^st respondent Municipality

¶54

had acted in accordance with the rules, there would not have been any delay in payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioners or to any other contingent employees who retired. Therefore the contention that the 1^st respondent is waiting for funds from 2^nd respondent on account of alleged financial stringency and therefore petitioners have to wait for the same are all unjustifiable. The delay in disbursement can only be on account of illegal diversion of pension fund for which petitioners need not suffer.

¶55

In case persons who retired from service

¶56

prior to petitioners are also liable to be paid, the respondents are free to make payment in accordance with priority without any delay.

¶57

Therefore, there shall be a direction to

¶58

the respondents to pay the entire benefits to the petitioners sanctioned in Ext.P1 in both writ petitions within a period of three months from the

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos.39401 & 39476 of 2017

¶60

¶61

date of receipt of a copy this judgment. In the event of any further delay, respondents shall compensate the petitioners by payment of interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of Ext.P1.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶64

P.E.Ismil v. Aluva Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.E.Ismil v. Aluva Municipality

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

Prakash O Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Ambikakumari .B.S. Vs K.S.Sreekala

Bindu G J Vs K S Sreekala

Anilkumar Vs N.Padmakumar

A.R.Mohankumar Vs Dr.Usha Titus

T. Chandrasekharan Pillai Vs Smt.Shainamol