Allowed

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ajith Kumar K.J

Kerala HC4 Jan 2021RP/106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition, filed by LIC, challenged the implementation of earlier pay-fixation orders, alleging calculation errors in dearness allowance. The Court allowed the review, recalled the judgment of WP(C) 14033/2015, and restored the Writ Petition to file.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; Judgment dated 23/10/2018 in WP(C)No.14033/2015 recalled; Writ Petition restored to file with liberty to place additional pleadings.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Ajith… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO. 14033/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14033/2015(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶8

1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI, PIN-400 021.

¶9

2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶10

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND 3RD RESPONDENT:

¶13

1 AJITH KUMAR K.J AGED 48 YEARS ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE I, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶14

2 SALLESH KUMAR K.S. HIGHER GRADE ASSISTANT (PROGRAMMER), DIVISIONAL OFFICE(KGSD), LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OFINDIA, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶15

3 MATHEW JOSEPH

¶16

ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURNACE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, VAIKOM-686 141.

¶17

4 SYRIAC VARGHESE

¶18

ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NAGAMPADOM, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶19

5 SAVIOUR M.T. HIGHER GRADE ASSISTANT, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA-690 101.

¶20

6 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, JEEVAN DEEP

¶21

RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

¶22

¶23

BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶24

R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY R1-5 BY ADV. SMT.N.SANTHA R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.V.VARGHESE R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO R1-5 BY ADV. SRI.S.A.ANAND R1-5 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.REMYA R1-5 BY ADV. SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA R1-5 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU V.K. R1-5 BY ADV. KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY

¶25

CGC. SMT.H.SUBHA LEKSHMI

¶26

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Dated this the 4th day of January 2021

¶31

The LIC has filed this Revision Petition

¶32

pointing out that the implementation of Annexure A1 order by way of Exts.P40 to P44 orders fixing

¶33

the pay of the petitioners was erroneous.

¶34

Petitioners pointed out that though the basic order by which the Review Petitioners' pay was

¶35

fixed was Annexure A1, while implementing it, the dearness allowance was again reckoned that

¶36

too after reckoning the basic pay at a higher rate. This Court had disposed of the Writ Petition taking note of Exts.P40 to P44 orders re-fixing the pay of the petitioners in the Writ Petition. When it is pointed out that the

¶37

calculation was erroneous, I am of the view that the judgment requires review.

¶38

RP.No.106 OF 2019 IN WP(C)NO.14033/2015

¶39

¶40

Adv.Sri.V.Varghese, the learned counsel

¶41

appearing for the Writ Petitioners vehemently argued that the ex-service men who were employed

¶42

in the year 2009 have been taken for a ride for more than five times in the matter of the fixation of their pay. But it can not be disputed that the judgment was rendered taking note of Exts.P40 to P44 orders issued by the LIC itself which is stated to have been arrived at mistakenly.

¶43

Therefore, I am of the view that the

¶44

matter has to be heard again on merits with liberty to parties to place on record additional pleadings. However, since the petitioners were granted the benefit by the LIC itself and they were under the impression that they are drawing

¶45

the pay for which they are legitimately entitled, the review petition is allowed on condition that there shall be no recovery till the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶46

¶47

Accordingly, the judgment dated 23/10/2018

¶48

in W.P.(C)No.14033/2015 is recalled and the Writ

¶49

Petition is restored to file.

¶50

W.P.(C)No.14033/2015

¶51

Post the Writ Petition on 25/01/2021 as per

¶52

roster.

¶53

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶59

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY NO.CO/PER/E	OF TH R-A/147	E CIRCULAR BEARING /2017 DATED 6.1.2017
	ISSUED BY (PERSONNEL)	THE .	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITIONER	OF ISSUE BY THE	THE LETTER DATED D TO THE FIRST SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITIONER	OF ISSUE BY THE	THE LETTER DATED D TO THE SECOND SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITIONER	OF ISSUE BY THE	THE LETTER DATED D TO THE SECOND SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITINOER	OF ISSUE BY THE	THE LETTER DATED D TO THE THIRD SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITIONER	OF ISSUE BY THE	THE LETTER DATED D TO THE FOURTH SECOND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITIONER	OF ISSU BY THE	THE LETTER DATED ED TO THE 5TH 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY 27.12.2018 PETITIONER	OF ISSU BY THE	THE LETTER DATED ED TO THE 5TH 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶60

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

PA TO JUDGE

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ajith Kumar K.J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ajith Kumar K.J

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

Abdul Rasheed Vs Managing Director

Sowmya Mathew Vs the Marriage Officer (Sub Registrar)

Anil Kumar Vs the Kerala State Housing Board

M.Hazeena Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Victim Vs Union of India