Disposed

K.C.Surendran @ Surendran Perinjery v. Union of India

Kerala HC22 Jan 2019WP(C)/1862/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court ordered the 1st respondent to disburse admitted pension benefits without delay due to the petitioner's elderly age and illness. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider granting benefits from the application date rather than the sanction date. This writ petition regarding pension rights is now disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Disbursement of admitted pension benefits within one month; reconsideration of benefit start date within two months.

K.C.Surendran @ Surendran Perinjery Vs Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1862 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.C.SURENDRAN @ SURENDRAN PERINJERY AGED 77 YEARS

¶8

S/O. CHAMIKUTTY, KARAPULLY HOUSE, PERINJERY P.O, THRISSUR 680 306

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT TO THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE, C-WING, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 115.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 001.

¶13

BY ADV. MR.K.K.SETHUKUMAR, CGC

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019 2

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

======================

¶19

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019

¶20

======================

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The prayers in this Writ Petition(Civil) are as follows:

¶24

i. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioner is entitled to Artists Pension under”Scheme for Pension and Medical Aid to Artists” as ordered by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P-1 from the date of application itself i.e from 28/01/2013. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to disburse the petitioners Artists Pension under “Scheme for Pension and Medical Aid to Artists” forthwith. Iii. To render such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in circumstances of the case.

¶25

Heard Sri.Vinay Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.K.K.Sethukumar, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent.

¶26

The petitioner is deeply aggrieved by the long delay in sanctioning and disbursing Pension and financial assistance under the scheme for Pension and Medical Aid to Artists, even though the same has been duly sanctioned as per Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 13.04.2018, in spite of the petitioner making available all the requisite details thereof as per Exts.P3 to P-6.

¶27

The petitioner is a Drama Artist and Voice Drama Artist of repute

¶28

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019 3

¶29

in the State of Kerala and is well known in this field by peers and he is known by the popular name by 'Surenderan Perinjery', the petitioner had applied for a financial assistance to persons distinguished in letters, arts or such other walks of life in 1999 and 2001. He had again applied for the said financial assistance on 28.01.2013. There was no action on the same had preferred W.P.(C)No. 26487 of 2017 before this Court. Thereby this Court has a judgment dated 30.08.2017, as Ext.P-1 in that this Court directed the 1^st respondent-Union Government of the Ministry of Culture to consider and pass orders on the said application of the petitioner submitted on 28.01.2013. The 1^st respondent has considered and passed orders on the petitioners application as per Ext.P-2 proceedings, dated on 13.04.2018, however limiting the relief, cost of fee only from 11.04.2018 and not from the date of submission of the application, viz, 28.01.2013.

¶30

The petitioner has made the application as per Ext.P-1 therein on 28.01.2013 along with the Income Certificate, Bank Authorization Letter and Digital Life certificates etc. By Ext.P-2 dated 13.04.2018, the respondents thereafter directed the petitioner to submit certain documents mentioned therein and the petitioner had immediately thereafter made available the entire documents as evident from Exts.P-3 to P-6. Thereafter no effective action has been forthcoming from the respondents in the matter.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019 4

¶32

The other grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent was obliged to sanction the said Pension and financial assistance to the petitioner, with effect from, the date of submission of the application(28.01.2013), in as much as the said stand of the 1^st respondent that the benefit can be sanctioned only from the date of sanction order, is legally wrong and such condition has no relevance or applicability in the context of the present Pension Scheme for Artists.

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the 1^st respondent will immediately take up the matter in Ext.P-2 preferred by the petitioner and verify whether Exts.P-3 to P-6 have been duly received and should ensure that the benefits sanctioned to him as per Ext.P-2 dated 13.04.2018 with effect from 11.04.2018 are disbursed to the petitioner without any further delay. This Court would so direct taking into account the elderly age of the petitioner as he is now aged of more than 77 years. Moreover it is stated that the petitioner is recently diagnosed as suffering from cancer and he immediately requires lot of monetary expenses for the treatment of that disease etc. Therefore it is ordered that the necessary benefits already sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext.P-2 with effect from 11.04.2018 should be disbursed to the petitioner without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019 5

¶35

Further it is also ordered that the 1^st respondent will also reconsider the matter to the extent Ext.P-2 has sanctioned the financial assistance to the petitioner only from 11.04.2018. Prima facie this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the 1^st respondent in Ext.P-2 that the said benefit can be sanctioned only from the sanction order, which may be otherwise relevant in the context of freedom fighters' pension, as the matter could require a different treatment especially in the context of assessment in respect of events which have taken place more than 70 years back. Moreover it is also stated that the petitioner had earlier made an application for grant of the instant benefit in the years 1990 and 2001. From Ext.P-1 judgment of this Court can be seen that the application of the petitioner in Ext.P-1 therein has been made on 28.01.2013 along with Income Certificate, Bank Authorizartion and Life/Age Certificate. Prima facie, in cases like this, the benefit could be sanctioned at least from the date of the application. However no final opinion is pronounced by this Court on this issue and the 1^st respondent will seriously re-consider the matter and will pass orders on the request of the petitioner that he is entitled for sanction of Ext.P-2 not be merely from 13.04.2018 but from 28.01.2013 (date of application) and if the said request is allowed, then arrears should also be disbursed to the petitioner. The decisions in this regard will be taken by the 1^st respondent within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Since the petitioner is

¶36

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019 6

¶37

suffering from throat cancer, the benefits already sanctioned as Ext.P2 should not be delayed merely on account of the reconsideration of the matter relating to the cut off date for making the grant. The admitted arrears as per Ext.P-2 dated 13.04.2018 should certainly be disbursed by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner within the time limit of one month as ordered herein above.

¶38

The Registry will forward a certified copy of the judgment to the 1^st respondent for further compliance and immediate compliance at the cost of the petitioner.

¶39

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶40

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2019 7

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 26487 OF 2017 DATED 30/08/2017 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO NO-2-14/2017-P ARTS DATED 13/04/2018. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA FOR DATA UPDATION EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION AND THE DIGITAL LIFE CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF INCOME CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF BANK AUTHORIZATION LETTER. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/08/2018

K.C.Surendran @ Surendran Perinjery v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Surendran @ Surendran Perinjery 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

P.M.Abdulla Haji Vs the District Registrar

Philipose Thomas,(P.Thomas) Vs State of Kerala

Leela Vs State of Kerala

K. Purushan, Vs the District Collector

Namitha D., Vs Radhika P.R.

Abdul Jaleel Vs Special Thahsildar