Disposed

N.M.Sankaran Namboothiri v. Travancore Dewaswom Board

Kerala HC4 Dec 2018WP(C)/4871/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to reckon pre-regularization service (1978-1983) for pension/grade. Court noted lack of provision and directed parties to representation process pending proper authority decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to Respondent 1 within one month for consideration with hearing; order to be passed within three months.

N.M.Sankaran Namboothiri Vs Travancore… — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4871 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

N.M.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI

¶8

AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, RETIRED MELSANTHI, NEELAMANALLOM, PULIYOOR P.O.,CHENGANNUR 689 510.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM 695 003

¶12

2 THE DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEWASWOM BOARD,NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM 695 003.

¶13

3 THE ASSISTANT DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER ARANMULA GROUP, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 533.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC, TDB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 4871 of 2018

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner was originally working as full time Kaisthaani at PD Puliyoor Devaswom from 01.03.1978 onwards. He was regularised as Santhi in that Devaswom on 13.05.1983. It is stated that Puliyoor Devaswom was declared as a Schedule Devaswom as per order dated 13.09.1983 and petitioner has been drawing pay in the scale, applicable to Santhi.

¶20

2. Petitioner submits that he retired from service in the year 2012 after working in various Devaswoms. It is stated that he had submitted Ext.P1 representation on 12.03.2012 requesting to reckon the PD service for the purpose of Grade, Pension etc. Petitioner also points out that as per Ext.P2 letter of the Administrative Officer of the Chengannur Devaswom, his representation was recommended. But no action was taken. Petitioner points out that as per Exts.P3 and P4 orders, others who had been working in PD Devaswoms were

¶21

WP(C).No. 4871 of 2018

¶22

¶23

granted all benefits reckoning PD service. This

¶24

writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to reckon the service of petitioner in PD Devaswom from 01.03.1978 to 01.07.1983 for the purpose of granting Higher Grade, fixation of pay, etc.

¶25

3. The learned Standing Counsel has filed a statement on behalf of the 1^st respondent stating that the petitioner commenced his regular service only on 01.07.1983 and the service benefits can be

¶26

granted only on the basis of his regular service from 01.07.1983. Producing Annexure R1(a) circular issued in January 2007, it is stated that the service rendered on regular scale of pay would alone be considered for the purpose of Higher Grade and in the case of those who were granted the benefits of service other than on seniority list shall be reviewed. Therefore according to the learned Standing Counsel, PD service is not liable to be reckoned.

¶27

WP(C).No. 4871 of 2018

¶28

¶29

4. According to the petitioner, the refusal

¶30

to grant him the benefit of PD service when others are granted the benefit, is discriminatory.

¶31

5. No provision is seen available for reckoning the PD service for the purpose of service benefits. No general decision is also seen taken by the Devaswom for reckoning the same.

¶32

In the above circumstances, petitioner is

¶33

free to approach the 1^st respondent with a representation. In case such a representation is submitted along with a copy of the judgment, within a period of one month, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on the same, by the 1^st respondent within a further period of three months. Petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing, before orders are passed.

¶34

Accordingly, this writ petition is

¶35

disposed of.

¶36

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No. 4871 of 2018

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 12/3/	COPY OF 2012	THE REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE	COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 23/4/2012
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE 16/12	COPY ORDER /97	ROC NO.12520/97/MISC DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE DATED	COPY OF 14/8/2003	LETTER NO.FAO 390/03/GRATU
RESPONDENT'S/S	EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A)	TRUE	COPY OF THE	CIRCULAR DATED 01.02.2007.

N.M.Sankaran Namboothiri v. Travancore Dewaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.M.Sankaran Namboothiri v. Travancore Dewaswom Board

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

Abilash.C Vs Cochin Devasom Board

Sujith P Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

C.Mullakoya Vs the Administrator

Poornima. R Vs State of Kerala

Amanulla P. Vs the Administrator

Lakshmi Hotels and Resorts Vs Depiuty Tahsildar (Rr).