Disposed

K.Sureshkumar v. the Union of India

Kerala HC28 Feb 2018WP(C)/5598/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this departmental punishment case involving reduction of pay, the High Court held that since the petitioner filed a valid statutory appeal, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Chairman to consider and pass orders on the appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the statutory appeal within two months.

K.Sureshkumar Vs the Union of India — 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 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5598 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K. SURESHKUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASHEKHARAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MECHANICAL OFFICER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.JAYADEEP MENON SMT.P.KRISHNAPRIYA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

¶12

3. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 & R3 BY SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 5598 of 2018 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.P/S/20/2015/S DATED 04/04/2017 PRONOUNCED BY THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/APPEAL DATED 21/04/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 01.03.2018.

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------

¶26

W.P.(C).No.5598 of 2018

¶27

------------------------------------- Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner, who is working as an

¶30

Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the 2^nd respondent is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of punishment of reduction of pay in a departmental enquiry conducted against him. He has submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶33

As Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶36

K.Sureshkumar v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sureshkumar v. the Union of India

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

C.Gopinathan Vs Dr.T.a.Abdul Majeed

Suseela.K. Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Namboothiri T.V Vs Secretary to Government

Sr.Ranjana Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

Sindhu T.R. Vs State of Kerala

T.A. Thankappan Vs State of Kerala