Disposed

Reena C.C v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2023WP(C)/25784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions to grant employment assistance to the son of a deceased employee under Rule 188A of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The court directed the respondent Union to consider the application along with enclosures and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P1 in light of Exts.P3 and P4 and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Reena C.C Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
TUESDAY,THE14THDAYOFNOVEMBER2023/23RDKARTHIKA,1945

¶3

WP(C) NO. 25784 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1REENAC.C
AGED51YEARS
WIFEOFLATELOODUROY,AGED51YEARS.BLESSVILLA,
KOTTALIP.O.,KANNURDISTRICT,PIN-670005

¶6

2SHELDONROY
AGED31YEARS
SONOFLATELOODUROY,AGED31YEARS.BLESSVILLA,
KOTTALIP.O.,KANNURDISTRICT,PIN-670005
BYADVS.
C.MURALIKRISHNAN(PAYYANUR)
ABRAHAMGEORGEJACOB
P.I.RAHEENA
SHAHNA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1THESTATEOFKERALA
REPRESENTEDBYSECRETARYTODEPARTMENTOF
COOPERATION,GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001

¶9

2KERALACO-OPERATIVEMILKMARKETINGFEDERATIONLIMITED
MILMABHAVAN,PATTOMPALACEP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695004,REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMAN.
3THEMALABARREGIONALCO-OPERATIVEMILKPRODUCERS
UNIONLIMITED(MILMA)
KANNURDAIRY,PALLIKKUNNUP.O.,KANNUR,PIN-670004
REPRESENTEDBYITSDAIRYMANAGER
4THEDAIRYMANAGER
MALABARREGIONALCO-OPERATIVEMILKPRODUCERSUNION
LIMITED(MILMA),KANNURDAIRY,PALLIKKUNNUP.O,
KANNUR,PIN-670004

¶10

W.P(C) No.25784 of 2023

¶11

¶12

SMT.LATHAANAND,SCFORMILMA

¶13

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON14.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P(C) No.25784 of 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioners are the wife and son of late Loodu Roy who was employed in the 3^rd respondent ‘Milk Producers Union’ as a Driver. Loodu Roy died while in service on 26.1.2022. The petitioners state that the 2^nd petitioner is entitled to employment assistance as contemplated under Rule 188A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules under the Scheme for Employment Assistance to the Dependants of the Employees Dying in Harness. In pursuance to the same, Ext.P1 application was filed by the 2^nd petitioner before the 3^rd respondent. The petitioners assert that in response, Ext.P2 letter has been issued by the 4^th respondent directing the 2nd petitioner to produce certain records to consider the application. It is submitted that, as per Ext.P2, the relevant records have been submitted. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action has been taken on the application in spite of furnishing the required documents. It is on these assertions that this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to grant employment assistance to the 2nd petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶19

ii) Declare that the 2nd petitioner is entitled for employment assistance in any of the establishment under 3rd respondent.

¶20

W.P(C) No.25784 of 2023

¶21

¶22

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned

¶23

counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that his request is for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider Ext.P1 in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 and take a decision.

¶24

The learned Standing Counsel submits that if the request is for consideration of Ext.P1 there cannot be any impediment.

¶25

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to take up Ext.P1 in the light of Exts.P3 and P4 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner.

¶26

Orders shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶28

IAP

¶29

W.P(C) No.25784 of 2023

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25784/2023

¶32

PETITIONERS’EXHIBITS:

¶33

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHEAPPLICATIONDATED
06/10/2022SUBMITTEDBYTHE2NDPETITIONER
TOTHE3RDRESPONDENT

¶34

ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHELETTERNO.
KNR/HRD&A/2022/1385DATED23/12/2022ISSUED
BYTHE4THRESPONDENT

¶35

ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEREPLYLETTERDATED
23/06/2023SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONERSTO
THE4THRESPONDENT
ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHEPOSTALRECEIPTDATED
26/06/2023EVIDENCINGTHEDISPATCHOF
LETTERTOTHE4THRESPONDENT

Reena C.C v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena C.C v. the 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

Valsala Vs Dr.K.M.Abraham

Sindhu P.V. Vs Additional Chief Secretary to Government

K.P.Ashokan Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Sreelal L.B Vs Union of India Represented by Its Secretary

P. Basheer, Vs Malabar Cements Ltd.

Sini O.B., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation