Partly allowed

K.J.George, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2022WP(C)/1172/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondents to disburse the petitioner's terminal benefits due within five months in monthly instalments or lump sum, balancing his retirement rights with the Corporation's financial crisis.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to disburse terminal benefits due to the petitioner within an outer limit of five months in monthly instalments or as lump sum payment.

K.J.George, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1172 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.J.GEORGE,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O. K.K. JOHN, KOCHALUMOOTIL HOUSE, BHAGAVATHYPADY,
PATHIYOOR P.O., ALLEPPEY-690508.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP
SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶10

2 HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B. NO. 171, SMSM INSTITUTE COMPOUND, PRESS ROAD, PUTHENCHANTHAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

3 MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA, P.B. NO. 171, SMSM INSTITUTE COMPOUND, PRESS ROAD, PUTHENCHANTHAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV SMT.LATHA ANAND

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 1172 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2022

¶17

The petitioner retired from the service of the 1^st respondent Corporation as Manager (Personnel and Administration) on 30.6.2015. A day prior to his retirement, ie on 29.6.2015, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary proceedings in WP©No. 25829 of 2015, which has been allowed by this court by a separate judgment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the disciplinary proceedings is pending, the respondents are bound to pay the terminal benefits due to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on the decision in W.A No.666/2020, wherein this court had directed the payment of terminal benefits to similarly placed employee and had even gone to the extend of directing that, until payments are made, the Managing Director and the Managers of the 1^st respondent shall not be paid their full salary.

¶18

2.Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits

¶19

WP(C) NO. 1172 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

that the aforementioned direction in W.A No.666 of 2020 was taken modified at the instance of Corporation. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the Corporation is facing acute financial crisis and a direction to disburse petitioner’s terminal benefits forthwith will adversely effect the functioning of the Corporation itself. It is pointed out that the gratuity amount due to the petitioner has already been disbursed and the balance amount due is only Rs. 1,65,583/-. According to the learned Standing Counsel atleast six months time is required to pay the amount.

¶22

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that almost six years have been lapsed after petitioner’s retirement and there is not justification for delaying disbursal of terminal benefits further.

¶23

4.Having heard the learned counsel on either side and taking into account the financial situation of the Corporation, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition directing the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse that the terminal benefits due to

¶24

WP(C) NO. 1172 OF 2020

¶25

4

¶26

the petitioner within an outer limit of five months, in monthly instalments or as lump sum payment. The respondent shall furnish the petitioner with a statement containing the computation of his terminal benefits within two weeks.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 1172 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1172/2020

¶33

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04/07/2016 OF THE` `HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.25829/2015.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24/05/2017` `SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23/08/2017` `ISSUED BY THE ST. GREGORIOUS MEDICAL MISSION` `HOSPITAL, PARUMALA.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`A TRUE COPY OR REPRESENTATION DATED 12/10/2018` `SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND POSTAL RECEIPT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ARRANGEMENT LETTER FOR TERM` `LOAN UNDER EDUCATION LOAN SCHEMES EXECUTED BY` `THE PETITIONER AND HIS SON BEFORE STATE BANK` `OF INDIA`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`R2(a):`	`TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 27/06/2015.`

K.J.George, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J.George, v. State of Kerala

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

Balakrishnan N. Vs Sreekovil Chits Company (P) Limited (in Liquidation)

Balakrishnan N. Vs Sreekovil Chits Company (P) Limited in Liquidation)

M/S.Kshemanidhi Kuries and Loans Pvt.Ltd. Vs Jomy T.Jose

Shyam S Menon Vs Aravindakumar

State of Kerala Represented by Special Tahsildar (La)(Railways) Vs Mohanan

Abhijith Vijayan Vs State of Kerala