Disposed

E.R.Radhakrishnan v. Union of India

Kerala HC2 Sept 2019WP(C)/11159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P7 within three weeks of re-submission, after hearing the fifth respondent, and granted the petitioner liberty to re-submit the evidence within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P7 within three weeks after re-submission by the petitioner, with liberty to the petitioner to re-submit within two weeks.

E.R.Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 11TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.11159 OF 2019(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

E.R.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O.RAMAN NAIR, EEZHANCHERIL HOUSE, LBSRA-318, LAL BAHADUR SASTHRI ROAD, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM- 682305.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON SRI.S.SABARINADH SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695033.

¶12

3 THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI- 682017.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION), BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI- 682017.

¶14

5 M/S.KERALA ELECTRICAL AND ALLIED ENGG. LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, MAMALA P.O., KOCHI- 682305.

¶15

WP(C).No.11159 OF 2019(T) 2

¶16

R1 BY SMT.SREEKALA K.L., CGC R2 SR. GP. SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.RANJU MOHAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.11159 OF 2019(T) 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri. A Jayasankar., the learned counsel for

¶21

the petitioner, Smt. Sreekala K.L., the learned Central Government Counsel for the first respondent, Smt. Jasmine M.M., the learned Government Pleader for the second respondent, Sri. S. Prasanth, the learned Standing Counsel for third and fourth respondents and Sri. G. Ranju Mohan, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶22

The petitioner prays for the following reliefs:-

¶23

"i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 3 & 4 to consider Ext. P4 representation and bring it to a logical conclusion, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, and

¶24

ii) Pass such any other direction, order or reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

submits that for the present the petitioner is satisfied, if the fourth respondent considers Ext.P7 in accordance with law and disposes of the request within the time

¶27

WP(C).No.11159 OF 2019(T) 4

¶28

stipulated by this Court. The prayer is limited to the extent of directing the fourth respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7.

¶29

After perusing Ext.P7, I am satisfied that the fourth respondent could be directed to consider and dispose of Ext. P7, expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of by the

¶31

following order:

¶32

a) The petitioner is given liberty to re-submit Ext. P7 accompanied by a copy of this judgment within two weeks from today.

¶33

b) Thereafter, the fourth respondent considers and disposes of Ext. P7 within three weeks from the date of such re-submission. The fifth respondent shall also be heard before the disposal of Ext.P7.

SD/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

DCS

WP(C).No.11159 OF 2019(T) 5

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER AS PER THE RECORDS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, GO(MS)NO.59/11/ID DATED 26.02.2011. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)NO.68.2012/ID DATED 04.06.2012. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.09.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.KR/KCH/2700/358 & 408/SPECIAL CELL(2)/2018 DATED 03.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE LETTER NO KR/KCH/SP.CELL/19 DATED 12.4.2019, CAUSED BY THE OFFICES OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶42

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.5.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

E.R.Radhakrishnan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.R.Radhakrishnan v. 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

Sajeev.O.J. Vs the District Collector

M/S.Tata Communications Limited Vs State of Kerala

C.Anwar Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Rajappa Kaimal Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Seethu Granites Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Manikkampara Granites Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State Tax OFFICER-1