Allowed

P.K.Sarojini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2023RP/638/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the court clarified that since the petitioner remitted the entire social security and family pension dues to the Second Respondent, the Third Respondent is barred from proceeding with revenue recovery proceedings based on specific demand notices.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent is directed not to proceed with revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts P4 and P5, which shall be treated as closed.

P.K.Sarojini Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 638 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 2413/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

P.K.SAROJINI,AGED 73 YEARS,WIFE OF CHAKRAPANI, VEZHAMPILLI
NIRAPPEL, PULICKAMALY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682314
BY ADVS.
V.RENJU
NIKHEL K GOPINATH
K.JAGADEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/, PIN
- 695001
2MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
MULANTHURUTHY P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 682314
3DEPUTY TAHSILDAR I
KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682031

¶11

BY ADVS.
Martin Jose P
P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020)
HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)

¶12

Smt Pushpalatha M.K, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-R1 AND R3

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP No. 638 of 2023

C.S DIAS,J.

RP No. 638 of 2023

¶18

----------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The review petition is filed to clarify that the review petitioner has deposited the entire amount payable by her

¶21

to the second respondent/panchayat and consequently the

¶22

third respondent may be directed not to enforce Exts P4

¶23

and P5 demand notices.

¶24

The petitioner has averred in the review

¶25

petition that, she had filed the writ petition to quash Ext

¶26

P3 notice issued by the second respondent and the

¶27

consequential revenue recovery proceedings initiated

¶28

against her by the third respondent. The petitioner’s case

¶29

in the writ petition was that, she was receiving social

¶30

¶31

RP No. 638 of 2023

¶32

security pension from the second respondent. On the

¶33

death of her husband on 28.10.2019, she also started to receive family pension. Then, the second respondent issued Ext P3 letter to her, directing her to refund the social security pension received by her, subsequent to the date of death of her husband because she became ineligible to receive the said pension with effect from 1.7.2013. After the initiation of the revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioner has remitted the entire amount due to the second respondent. Yet, the respondents 1 and 3 are continuing with the revenue recovery proceedings. Hence, it may be clarified that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as demanded in Exts P3 to P5.

¶34

¶35

RP No. 638 of 2023

¶36

Heard: Smt.V.Renju, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Martin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶37

Sri.Martin Jose, on instructions, submitted that, subsequent to the filing of the review petition, the second respondent has already communicated to the third respondent that, the petitioner has remitted the entire amount due to the second respondent. Therefore, the revenue recovery proceedings, pursuant to Exts P4 and P5, can be dropped and the review petition may be allowed.

¶38

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the submissions made

¶39

¶40

RP No. 638 of 2023

¶41

across the Bar, particularly the admitted fact that the

¶42

petitioner has remitted the entire dues payable to the second respondent, I am of the view that the third respondent is to be directed not to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings initiated as against the petitioner pursuant to Exts P4 and P5.

¶43

In the result, the review petition is allowed as

¶44

follows:

¶45

The third respondent is directed not to proceed with revenue recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts P4 and P5 demand notices, which shall be

¶46

treated as closed.

¶47

SD/-

¶48

sks/18.9.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

RP No. 638 of 2023

¶51

APPENDIX OF RP 638/2023

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

`Annexure A.1`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT` `THE 2ND RESPOND` `4-2-2023`	`COPY` `ENT`	`OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY` `TO THE PETITIONER DATED`
`Annexure, A.2`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT`	`COPY`	`OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED`
	`BY KERALA STATE` `MULANTHURUTHY D`	`CO-` `ATED`	`OPERATIVE BANK,` `31-3-2023`
`Annexure.A.3`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT`	`COPY`	`OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED`
	`BY THE VILLAGE` `1-4-2023`	`OFFI`	`CER MULANTHURUTHY DATED`

P.K.Sarojini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Sarojini 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Babu.v. Vs M/S. Sree Gokualam Chits & Another

Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

K.V. Viswanathan Vs T.G. Muraleedhara Panicker

S.Prashobhini Vs P.K.Kumaran and Another

R.Prakash Vs S.Latha & State

Biju.K.B Vs Vikraman Pillai and Another