Dismissed

The Kerala State Coconut Dvlp. Corpn. v. P.Raveendran Pillai

Kerala HC14 Jan 2022RFA/64/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal regarding recovery of Dearness Allowance arrears, the High Court held that since the employee refused the voluntary retirement offer, his retirement was compulsory. Consequently, he is entitled to benefits corresponding to compulsory retirement, and the legal position from A.K. Bindal does not apply.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no cost awarded.

The Kerala State Coconut Dvlp. Corpn. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 64 OF 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2006 IN OS 520/2000 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 3 & 4 IN O.S.NO.520 OF 2000:

¶8

1THE KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING, DIRECTOR,
C/O. KERAFED OFFICE, ARISTO UNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶9

2THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
C/O. KERAFED OFFICE, ARISTO JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶10

BY ADV Smt.SANJANA R. NAIR, SC, KERALA STATE COCONUT
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 IN O.S.NO.520 OF 2000 :

¶12

1P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI
S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI,
T.C.4/1702, BEIHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

¶14

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT.,

¶15

GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA (AGRICULTURE), GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER SR.
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

¶18

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RFA NO. 64 OF 2007

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

It is against the decree for recovery of

¶23

arrears of Dearness Allowance based on the
pay revision, the defendants 3 and 4,
employer,theKeralaStateCoconut

¶24

Development Corporation, came up in appeal.

¶25

2. The specific case advanced by the

¶26

plaintiff is that he had not availed of
voluntary retirement scheme and as such, the
payment scheduled therein on retirement,
cannot be made applicable in the matter of
disbursement of Dearness Allowance. On the
other hand, it is the case of defendants 3
and 4 that the maximum amount payable under
the scheme comes to Rs.1,80,000/- with
gratuity or one half of monthly salary for
every completed year, whichever is less.

¶27

¶28

RFA NO. 64 OF 2007

¶29

Hence, the maximum amount payable under the
scheme comes to Rs.1,80,000/- with gratuity
which was duly paid to the employee, the
plaintiff herein.

¶30

3. Ext.B5 is the payment schedule. There
is nothing in the payment schedule as to
whether the employee had accepted voluntary
retirement scheme. On the other hand, it
would show only the schedule of payment to a
person who had retired under the said scheme.
No other document was produced to show that
the plaintiff has accepted retirement under
the voluntary retirement scheme. Exts.A7 to
A9 show that the plaintiff in fact refused to
accept the offer of retirement under the said
scheme especially through Ext.A7 letter dated
29.09.1999. Hence, the retirement of the
plaintiff can only be considered as a
compulsory retirement. Necessarily, the

¶31

¶32

RFA NO. 64 OF 2007

¶33

plaintiff is entitled to all the benefits
based on compulsory retirement.

¶34

4. The legal position settled by the Apex
Court in A.K.Bindal & Anr. v. Union of India
& Ors. (2003 (5) SCC 163) cannot be relied on
by the appellants since there is no
acceptance of voluntary retirement scheme by
the plaintiff/employee and no evidence was
adduced to show the contrary. The bar under
the provisions of Kerala Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, will not come into play,
unless there is a notification as mandated
under Section 15(2) of the said Act.

¶35

Hence, the appeal fails, dismissed. No
cost.

¶36

 Sd/-

¶37

P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE

¶38

SPV

The Kerala State Coconut Dvlp. Corpn. v. P.Raveendran Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala State Coconut Dvlp. Corpn. v. P.Raveendran Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Nazeer Vs P.Laila Beevi

Pouli Vs Union of India

B. Prasannakumari Vs a. Thomas

Jayaprakash Vs Mary Dayil

P.M. Parthakumar Vs Ajith Viswanath

Omana Vs Anilkumar