Disposed

Gopalan Thayathidavan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC29 Sept 2021RP/470/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered a review petition challenging the implementation delay of a prior judgment directing the respondent Board to consider a gratuity claim under Section 4(6) of the Gratuity Act within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Board to comply with the original judgment within one month of receiving the petitioner's representation and pass orders within two months thereafter.

Gopalan Thayathidavan Vs Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

R.P.470/2020 in W.P(C).17061/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943

¶7

RP NO. 470 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17061/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶10

GOPALAN THAYATHIDAVAN, AGED 36 YEARS

¶11

PARVATHY BHAVAN, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT

¶12

BY ADV P.M.PAREETH

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶15

2 CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BROAD, VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶16

3 CHIEF ENGINEER, (HRM) VIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶17

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THEKKEE BAZAR, PAYANNUR-670 307

¶18

BY ADV SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶20

29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

R.P.470/2020 in W.P(C).17061/2012

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The review petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present review petition seeking reliefs. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity in terms of Section 4(6) of the Gratuity Act, as expeditiously as possible. The judgment was pronounced on 25.11.2013.

¶25

Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the review petition on a premise that, since the copy of the judgment was not uploaded on the website, immediately after pronouncement of the judgment, he could not get a copy of it. Hence, a copy application was filed on 02.12.2019 and it was received on 26.06.2020. Petitioner has approached this Court on an apprehension that, since the judgment of this Court is sought to be implemented, Board may have technical objection regarding the delay and considerable time has elapsed after the date of pronouncement of the judgment.

¶26

Notice was issued to the respondents and by order dated 01.09.2021, petitioner was directed to file a proper representation along with certified copy of the judgment for compliance. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

¶27

R.P.470/2020 in W.P(C).17061/2012

¶28

¶29

for the KSEB, I feel that, the apprehension set up by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. By the judgment of this Court dated 25.11.2013, the third respondent was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for gratuity as expeditiously. No time limit was prescribed by this Court. Hence, when this judgment was brought to the notice of the Board, legally, they are obliged to act on the basis of the judgment.

¶30

However, to be on the safer side and to avoid unnecessary technical objections being set up later, I am inclined to dispose of the review petition itself by directing that the Board, who is the third respondent in the Writ Petition to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.11.2013 and pass orders on it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on the representation, which is stated to have been filed by the review petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 01.09.2021. Though, it was directed by this Court on 01.09.2021 that the petitioner shall make the representation, learned counsel submits that, due to an inadvertent omission, representation could not be submitted as directed. Petitioner shall accordingly file a representation referring to the above facts within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶31

R.P.470/2020 in W.P(C).17061/2012

¶32

¶33

order. On receipt of such representation, appropriate orders shall be passed by the third respondent in accordance with the judgment dated 25.11.2013 within a period of two months thereafter.

¶34

Review Petition is accordingly closed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDG

Sbna/

Gopalan Thayathidavan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalan Thayathidavan v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P .S. Unnikrishnan Vs the Chakkittapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.F 1675

Retnamma, Vs a.Alexander I.A.S

Dr.Rency Simon Vs the Secretary

Nadeera M, Vs the Karunagappally Municipality

Paul Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Gokul Sreekumar Vs Punjab National Bank