Disposed

C.N. Chinnammal v. Vaikom Municipality

Kerala HC2 Nov 2021WP(C)/22141/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted leave to dispose of the writ petition regarding the wife of a retired contingent sweeper seeking revised pension benefits. The court directed the Municipality to consider the petitioner's representation within one month.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's representation was directed to be considered by the Municipality within one month; any amounts payable must be disbursed within six months.

C.N. Chinnammal Vs Vaikom Municipality — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(C).22141/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 22141 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

C.N. CHINNAMMAL, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O R.VELAPPA CHETTIAR, KODUMTHUTHURUTHIL VEEDU, AIYERKULANGARA, THEKKENADA, VAIKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-686141.

¶10

BY ADV ANJALI MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686141, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶14

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNENMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696001.

OTHER PRESENT:

SC,SREEKALA A.

GP V.VENUGOPAL

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).22141/2021

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Petitioner is a widow aged 79 years. Her husband retired from service of the first respondent/Municipality as a Sweeper on 28.02.1998, after rendering 30 years of continuous service under them. On his retirement, husband was granted the terminal benefits as pension and DCRG. The grievance of the petitioner is that, pension to the contingent employees are revised periodically by the Government, usually in a span of 5 years. Accordingly, pension payable to the contingent employees was modified with effect from 01.07.2009. LSGD has revised pension benefits of contingent employees by Ext.P4 order. Claiming that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefits, petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the amount due to her has not been paid.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Vaikom Municipality, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself by directing the first respondent/Municipality to consider Ext.P5 representation as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Amounts payable, if any, shall be disbursed within a period of six months from the date of passing

W.P(C).22141/2021

of that order.

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna/

W.P(C).22141/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22141/2021

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DATE OF BIRTH ATTESTATION CERTIFICATE DATED 29.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PENSION DETAILS ATTESTATION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.07.2007.
Exhibit P3	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED PENSION ORDER NO. SA.OO(MS) NO.178/2017 LSGD DATED 07/09/2017 ISSUED BY THE LSGD DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit P5	THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1205/21 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING SUBMISSION F EXHIBIT P5 DATED 25.01.2021.

C.N. Chinnammal v. Vaikom Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.N. Chinnammal v. Vaikom Municipality

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

Musthafa T.T. Vs Abdul Sajeem S

Xavier Sixon P.M. Vs Kerala State Housing Board Represented by Its Secretary

Lenin. K.V. Vs Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee

V.Suresh Vs Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

Shareekhath M. Vs State of Kerala

The Corporate Manager Vs State of Kerala