Dismissed

Abe Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2023WP(C)/12814/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of full pension under the Kerala State Working Journalist Pension Scheme, 1993, alleging error in assessing his qualifying service. The Court held it could not adjudicate the claim on merits and directed the petitioner to seek reconsideration before the Managing Committee.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file an application for review of case before the Managing Committee within one month.

Abe Jacob 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ABE JACOB, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. JACOB, JOURNALIST,
RESIDING AT VELASSERIL HOUSE,
MONIPALLY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-686 636.

¶7

BY ADVS.
PRATHAP. S.R.K.
SMT.A.S.SANGEETHA
SRI.SAKERIA. P. PAUL
SMT.G.BINDU
SHRI.DHANANJAY DEEPAK

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 THE DIRECTOR, PUBLIC RELATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

3 THE DIRECTOR,

¶12

PUBLIC RELATION DEPARTMENT IN THE CAPACITY OF MANAGING
COMMITTEE FOR KERALA STATE WELFARE FUND FOR JOURNALIST,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner impugns Exts.P8 and P11,
to the extent to which full pension under the
Kerala State Working Journalist Pension
Scheme, 1993 (‘Pension Scheme’, for short),

¶20

has been denied to him.

¶21

2.Sri.S.R.K.Prathap – learned counsel
for the petitioner, vehemently argued that,
even though his client had more than the full
qualifying service required as a journalist,
for being admitted to the pension to its full
value, he has been denied the same under a
wrong impression that he had worked for only
nine years as such. He submitted that these
findings by the competent Authorities are in
error; and therefore, that he has been
constrained to approach this Court, assailing

¶22

WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶23

the aforesaid orders.

¶24

3.Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George – learned

¶25

Government Pleader, in response, however,

¶26

submitted that, even the pleadings on record
would indicate that petitioner himself admits

¶27

that he worked as a journalist only for nine

¶28

years and thereafter, in various other
capacities. He submitted that, therefore, if
he requires any modification of the decision
now taken by the ‘Managing Committee’ under
the ‘Scheme’, he must approach it with an
appropriate representation and he referred to
paragraph No.17 of Ext.P6 in substantiation.

¶29

submissions of the learned Government Pleader
because, paragraph 17 of Ext.P6, allows the

¶30

Managing Committee under the ‘Scheme’, to
reconsider any claim - either suo motu or on

¶31

WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶32

-4-

¶33

an application. If the petitioner has
materials to establish that he worked for

¶34

more than 10 years as a journalist, it would

¶35

certainly be open to him to approach the said
Committee under the afore provision.

¶36

5.This is more so because, this Court

¶37

will not be able to consider the claim of the
petitioner in its merits, at the first
instance, since it will require an assessment
ofrelevantdocumentsandfactual

¶38

circumstances, which I cannot do, while
acting under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

¶39

In the afore circumstances, I order this

¶40

writ petition, leaving liberty to the
petitioner to move an appropriate application

¶41

for review of his case before the Managing
Committee under the ‘Scheme’; and if this is

¶42

WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶43

done within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
same shall be considered by the said
Authority in their next meeting itself,
adverting to all relevant and germane inputs,
particularly paragraph 4(1) of Ext.P6 -
which, the petitioner asserts, allows him
full pension.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

akv

¶48

WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶49

-6-

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12814/2020

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO` `NO.ADM/PNL/338/91 DATED 11.04.1991` `APPOINTMENT AS SUB EDITOR IN DEEPIKA` `DAILY`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO` `NO.ADM/STAFF/1825/92 DATED 12.06.1992` `CONFIRMED THE PETITIONER AS SUB EDITOR` `IN DEEPIKA DAILY`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE` `CERTIFICATE DATED 29.04.2005 ISSUED BY` `THE CHEF EDITOR OF DEEPIKA DAILY'S`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTING ORDER` `ISSUED VIDE LETTER NO.668/E/13/KPA` `DATED 28.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE` `SECRETARY, KERALA PRESS ACADEMY`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE` `CERTIFICATE DATED 21.01.2016 ISSUED BY` `THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PRESS INFORMATION` `BUREAU, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE` `JOURNALIST PENSION SCHEME 1993`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER ON 11.04.2016 BEFORE` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER` `NO.G.O(ORD) NO.78/2019/1 AND PRD DATED` `20.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT GRANTING PENSION TO THE` `PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER`

¶53

WP(C) NO. 12814 OF 2020

¶54

-7-

¶55

NO.H1/55/2018/1 AND PR DATED
06.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.03.2020 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED
TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINSTER
EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.H1/56/2020-
LAND PRD DATED 28.05.2020 ISSUED BY
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC RELATIONS (H) DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18/01/2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
LEGIBLE COPY WITH A/D
EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NO.GO(P)7/93/PR DATED 16.08.1993
ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL SECRETARY.
EXHIBIT P14TRUE COPY OF THE GO(G1)NO.161/06 I&
PRD DATED 27.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

Abe Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abe Jacob 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar E.P Vs State of Kerala

Faizal .K.J Vs Bank of Baroda

Muthanatt Thomas Vs the Union of India

K.Suresh Babu Vs the District Collector

Baburaj .D Vs the Manager

M.T.P. Muhammed Vs Oriental Insurance Company