Disposed

Roy S Johnson v. M.T.Sukumaran

Kerala HC20 Jan 2022Con.Case(C)/870/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt proceeding regarding non-payment of pension benefits, the court observed that entitlement to the commuted value of pension remains unaddressed due to procedural delay. The petitioner was directed to challenge the respondent's stand in a separate proceeding while the contempt case was closed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with direction to petitioner to separately challenge KSRTC's stand on commuted value.

Roy S Johnson Vs M.T.Sukumaran — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 30TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

CON.CASE(C) NO. 870 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 446/2021

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2021 IN WP(C) 446/2021 OF

¶7

HIGH COURT OF KERALA)

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):

¶9

ROY S JOHNSON AGED 58 YEARS S/O. JOHNSON DAVID, RESIDING AT VAYALIL PUTHENPURAYIL PANANGAD, PUNALUR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 305 (SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, ALUVA DEPOT RETIRED ON 31-072019)

¶10

BY ADV N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WP(C):

¶12

SHRI.M.T.SUKUMARAN

¶13

(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (VIGILANCE) KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023

¶14

BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CON.CASE(C) NO. 870 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 446/2021

JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

According to the contempt petitioner, except the commuted value of pension, all other benefits have been paid. The learned standing counsel for the KSRTC submitted that the commuted value of pension could not be paid, since he has not applied for the same within the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of his retirement. This is stated in the memo filed by the KSRTC, dated 17.12.2021. In the judgment of this court dated 21.01.2021, this court had only directed that the entire amounts due to the writ petitioner shall be paid. Accordingly, the question whether the writ petitioner is entitled to the commuted value of pension has not specifically been considered by this court. Accordingly, I am inclined to close the Contempt Case (C), reserving the right of the petitioner herein to challenge the stand taken by the KSRTC that the petitioner is not entitled to the commuted

¶21

CON.CASE(C) NO. 870 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 446/2021 3

¶22

value of pension, since application was not submitted within one year from the date of his retirement. Leaving this option

¶23

open, the Contempt Case (C) is closed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶26

R.AV

¶27

CON.CASE(C) NO. 870 OF 2021 IN WP(C) 446/2021

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 870/2021 IN WP(C) 446/2021

¶30

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶31

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 21-1-2021 IN WP(C) NO. 446/21. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, PUNALUR

Roy S Johnson v. M.T.Sukumaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy S Johnson v. M.T.Sukumaran

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

Antony K.S Vs Biju Prabhakar, IAS

Sreejith Babu Vs Biju Prabhakaran IAS

Tenny P.K Vs Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Vs G. Manoj

K.Krishnan Namboothiri Vs Vishnu Battathiri v

Moideenkuty Vs v.a.Sahadevan