In this Writ Petition, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's claim for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay interest on Provident Fund closure amounts. The court held that such petitions seeking sole relief of interest cannot be maintained.
Petitioner's claim for writ of Mandamus regarding payment of interest is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE13THDAYOFNOVEMBER2023/22NDKARTHIKA,1945
WP(C)NO.19371OF2023
PETITIONER:
LEELAVELAYUDHAN
AGED63YEARS
VALIYAPARAMBILHOUSE,RAMAVARMAPURAMPOSTOFFICE,
THRISSURDISTRICT,PIN-680009.
(W/OLATEK.AVELAYUDHAN,TYRERETREADER,REGIONAL
WORKSHOP,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,
EDAPPAL).
BYADVC.V.MILTON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023.2 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023.SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC
THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
13.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.19371OF2023
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
2. I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court and
had filed W.P.(C) No.18509 of 2018 seeking disbursal of retirement benefits.
Court and had disposed of the matter by ordering as under
WP(C)NO.19371OF2023
3
4. This Court had made clear that due to paucity of materials, it
would not be possible for this Court to order payment of interest. Furthermore, this Court also noted the contention of the respondents that it was always open to the petitioner to produce materials that the civil proceedings had been disposed of. The question was left open to be raised in appropriate proceedings
In that view of the matter, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional forum claiming interest for the delayed payment, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE
Sru
1 [2005 KHC 163]
WP(C)NO.19371OF2023
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19371/2023
PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS
ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHE1STPAGEOFTHEPENSION
PAYMENTORDERISSUEDTOTHEPETITIONER.
ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEPROCEEDINGSNOS
NO.PA16(22A)23124/97DATED05.02.2014.
ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTINW.P(C)
NO.1S509/2018DATEDI5.O2.2O22OFTHIS
HONORABLECOURT.
ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHEMEMORANDUMNO.PF3/065129198
DATED14.01.1998OFTHE1STRESPONDENT
SANCTIONINGRS.23039.
ExhibitP5TRUECOPY,OFTHEJUDGMENTINW.P(C)NO.24053
/2007SANCTIONINGTHESTATUTORYINTERESTTOTHE
PETITIONERSTHEREIN.
ExhibitP6TRUECOPYOFTHECALCULATIONSHEETSHOWINGTHE
COMPOUNDINTERESTACCUMULATEDONEACHYEARFROM
1998TO2023.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be maintained for issuing directions regarding statutory interest on Provident Fund amounts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vijayakumaran Nair v. SBT [2005 KHC 163]Referred
Leela Velayudhan
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
Raja Vijayaraghavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court