Disposed

Dileep K.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2018WP(C)/5101/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners Government Pleaders at MACT complained of low remuneration. The court held representations were under consideration and directed State to consider the claim based on Advocate General's letter and pass orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 1-3 to consider petitioners' claim per Advocate General's recommendation and pass orders within three months.

Dileep K.R. Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5101 of 2018 -----------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 DILEEP K.R, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. K.R RADHAKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035, RESIDING AT DEEPTHI, AKG NAGAR, PANGAPARA P.O THIRUVNANTHAPURAM - 695 581.

¶8

2 BIJU NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU KRISHNA PANICKER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035, RESIDING AT DEVI KRIPA,TC 15/3017, ALTHARA NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE LAW SECRETARY, LAW (INSPECTION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

4. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI MANOJ KUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V.

¶17

WP(C).No. 5101 of 2018 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.62/17/LAW DATED 19.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.08.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE LAW MINISTER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE GENERAL KERALA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶22

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶23

6.04.2018

¶24

P.V.ASHA J.

¶25

W.P.(C).No.5101 of 2018

¶26

------------------------------------- Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2018

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Petitioners are Government Pleaders attached to

¶29

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The grievance is that the remuneration paid to them is too meagre and they are getting only a fee of Rs.2000/- per written statement and another Rs.1,500/after the disposal of the case. According to them,

¶30

they are unable to attend to any other case because of their appointment as Government Pleaders. It is pointed out that all disabilities attached to the Government Pleaders are also attached to Government

¶31

Pleaders in MACT. At the same time, they are not getting any benefits as in the case of other Government Pleaders. Pointing out that the Government

¶32

W.P.(C).No.5101 of 2018

¶33

¶34

Pleaders in the District Court are paid to a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. Petitioners have submitted representations Exts.P2 and P3 before the Chief Minister and Law Minister. It is stated that those representations have been forwarded to Law Department.

¶35

It is pointed out that their case was duly recommended by the Advocate General in Ext.P5 letter addressed to the Law Secretary, pointing out that the requirement of enhancement of remuneration and alternate methods to utilize their services in the District Courts. Even though, Ext.P5 recommendation was forwarded to the Law Secretary on 18.09.2017, the petitioners' complain that so far no positive action is taken.

¶36

Learned Special Government Pleader

¶37

submits that the representations of the petitioners are under consideration of the Government.

¶38

In the above circumstances, the writ petition

¶39

W.P.(C).No.5101 of 2018

¶40

¶41

is disposed of, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of Ext.P5 recommendation and to pass orders within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶42

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶43

Dileep K.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep K.R. v. State of Kerala

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

Leelamma. a Vs Anil Kumar

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

Radhakrishnan L Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Remya Balakrishnan Vs Jayakumar.K.B

Ambily Vijayan Vs the Medical Officer

Murali Kumar.P.S Vs Chengannur Municipality