Disposed

P.M.Salim v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC3 Feb 2021WP(C)/2724/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired Head Operator, challenged a pay reduction and ordered recovery via writ petition. The High Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation before effecting recovery, relying on Apex Court precedent regarding retired employees.

What did the court decide?

1st respondent directed to consider and pass orders on petitioner's representation within two months, hearing petitioner; recovery action kept in abeyance.

P.M.Salim Vs Kerala Water Authority — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942 WP(C).No.2724 OF 2021(M)

¶5

PETITIONER :-

¶6

P.M.SALIM,

¶7

PIRAMBILLYKUDY HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., ARAKKAPADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 556 (HEAD OPERATOR, KWA RETIRED ON 31/5/2018).

¶8

BY ADV. SHRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶11

2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.H.SUB DIVISION OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.

¶12

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶13

P.H.DIVISION OFFICE, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERANAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 542.

¶14

BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.2724 OF 2021(M)

¶17

-: 2 :-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶21

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Exhibit P2 order and quash the same.

¶22

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to restore the pay and other service benefits granted to the petitioner and enjoyed by him before the issue of Exhibit P2 order of reduction of pay.

¶23

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4 representation of the petitioner within a time limit as fixed by this Honourable Court.”

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had retired from service as Head Operator on 31.5.2018. It is submitted that thereafter, the pay of the petitioner has been reduced on the basis of an audit objection and recoveries have been ordered by Ext.P3. Against Ext.P3, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the respondents and seeks a consideration of the same.

¶27

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the

¶28

opinion that Ext.P4 representation preferred by the petitioner is liable

¶29

WP(C).No.2724 OF 2021(M)

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

to be considered and disposed of before any recovery is effected pursuant to Ext.P3. The contention of the petitioner that he had already retired from service before the objections had been raised is liable to be considered taking note of the binding directions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334].

¶32

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner as well, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The hearing can be conducted through any appropriate means, including by video conferencing. Further action on Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed as directed above.

¶33

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶34

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶35

Jvt/5.2.2021

¶36

WP(C).No.2724 OF 2021(M)

¶37

-: 4 :-

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-93/87 DATED 18/2/1991 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF THE ORDER DATED 4/4/2020 OF THE 2ND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY	OF THE GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER NO.KWA/AO
(PEN)/PEN	9734/COM. (NON MEDICAL)/8783 DATED
22/9/2020	IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/11/2020
OF THE PET	ITIONER SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

P.M.Salim v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Salim v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiji C.R. Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council (Keralam)

Biju Varughese Vs Bank of Baroda

Jismy Antony, Vs the University of Calicut

Dr. M.P. Anitha Vs the Manager, Snm Training College

Yogi Rakhee Manohar Vs State of Kerala

Mohanachandran T Vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Limited