Allowed

Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023WP(C)/29018/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired employees filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to direct the Kerala State Housing Board to disburse due terminal retirement benefits, including gratuity and commuted value, given the Board's failure to pay despite sanctioned orders. The court dismissed financial crisis as a valid excuse for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th respondent to disburse all retiral benefits within 4 months, with 6% interest from the due date.

Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala, Represented… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE6THDAYOFNOVEMBER2023/15THKARTHIKA,1945
WP(C)NO.29018OF2023

¶3

PETITIONERS

¶4

1SURESHBABU
AGED60YEARS
S/O.DAMODARAN,ACCOUNTSOFFICER(RETIRED),
HOUSINGBOARD,KANNURDIVISION,KANNUR,
RESIDINGATFORTUNEHOUSE,KANNADIPOYILPO,
BALUSSERY(VIA),KOZHIKODE,PIN–673612

¶5

2MOHANDASJ.
AGED60YEARS
S/O.JANARDHANANNAIR,
ASSISTANTEXECUTIVEENGINEER(RETIRED),
HOUSINGBOARD,PATHANAMTHITTADIVISION,
PATHANAMTHITTA,RESIDINGATMIDHILA,
MANIKANTESWARAMP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN–695013

¶6

3PREMALATHAB.
AGED60YEARS
W/O.LATESREEKUMARV
JUNIORSUPERINTENDENT(RETIRED),
HOUSINGBOARD,PATHANAMTHITTADIVISION,
PATHANAMTHITTA,RESIDINGATPADINJARETHIL,
KUTTOORP.O.,THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN–689106

¶7

4JOSEPHK.K.
AGED59YEARS
S/O.KURIAKOSE,ASSISTANTEXECUTIVEENGINEER
(RETIRED),ERNAKULAMDIVISION,ERNAKULAM,
RESIDINGATKURUNTHANATH,KOTHAMANGALAMP.O.,
ERNAKULAM,PIN–686691

¶8

5SUSHAMAS.
AGED60YEARS
W/O.LALKUMARN.EXECUTIVEENGINEER(RETIRED),
HOUSINGBORD,ERNAKULAMDIVISION,RESIDINGATC.
93/2608,BHAGAVATHIBHAVAN,MKKNAIRROAD,PETTAHP
O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN–695024

¶9

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶10

¶11

BYADVS.
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
TOME.JACOB
REXYELIZABETHTHOMAS
ATHULV.VADAKKEDOM

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶14

2 THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶15

3 THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶16

4 THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD (KSHB), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶17

5 THE SECRETARY KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD (KSHB), HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶18

BYADVS.
SajeevT.K.
K.P.MADHU

¶19

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON06.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No.4 to disburse all the retirement benefits due to the petitioners (except monthly pension) such as Terminal Surrender, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension (partial), DCRG (partial), etc. due to each of the petitioners within a stipulated time limit.

¶25

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent No.4 to pay interest @ 12% to petitioners for the delay in releasing amounts due to the petitioners.

¶26

iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to release amount due from respondent No.1 towards respondent No.4 within a stipulated time limit as fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶27

They contend that after serving for decades in the Kerala State Housing Board, they attained superannuation in the year 2019. They refer to Exts P1 to P1(d) Pension Sanctioning orders, and it is submitted that the pensionary benefits of all the petitioners have been sanctioned in the year 2019 itself. According to them, no steps are being taken to dispose of the pensionary benefits due to the petitioners. They assert that employees similarly placed as the petitioners had approached this Court and by Ext.P5 judgment in W.P(C) No.7419 of 2023 and connected cases, this Court had

¶28

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶29

¶30

ordered the disbursal of benefits within a period of four months. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to the same reliefs.

¶31

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶32

submits that the Housing Board is facing serious financial crisis and is unable to pay off the retiral benefits to their own employees, though they are not disputing their claim. He would reiterate that huge sums are due to the Board from the Government.

¶33

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. I find that the petitioners attained superannuation sometime in the year 2019. The pension payment orders have already been issued, as evident from Exts.P1 to P1(d). This Court has in similar circumstances has held that withholding terminal benefits not only jeopardizes the financial stability of pensioners like the petitioners but also transgresses their rights to a dignified life after retirement. It is to be steadfastly ensured that pensioners obtain their rightful entitlements, notwithstanding the financial predicaments of the respondents. Individuals like the petitioners are dependent on a fixed, and often meager, income post-retirement. When they are deprived of their terminal benefits, they will struggle to cover basic life necessities. Further, aging pensioners, like the petitioners, find it challenging to afford essential

¶34

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶35

¶36

medical care and medications, especially in the absence of the financial buffer furnished by their terminal benefits and gratuity. Due to the relentless surge in the cost of living stemming from inflation, maintaining a previous standard of living becomes a strenuous endeavor for the pensioner. In that view of the matter, I hold that the reasons offered by the respondents for not disbursing the benefits cannot be accepted. The egregiousness of the respondents’ omissions and the consequential suffering of retired employees is clearly violative of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. In Vijay L. Mahrotra v State of U.P.¹ , the Apex Court had held that in case of an employee retiring after rendering service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter. The mere fact that the respondents are facing a financial crisis is not at all a reason to withhold the retirement benefits due to the retired employees.

¶37

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by ordering as under:

¶38

There will be a direction to the 4th respondent to disburse all retiral benefits due to the petitioners, Terminal Surrender, Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension (partial), DCRG (partial), etc., less the monthly pension,

¶39

1 2001 (9) SCC 687

¶40

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶41

¶42

expeditiously in any event, within a period of four months. If the amount is not paid as ordered, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date

¶43

on which the amount became due until the amount is actually paid.

¶44

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶45

smm

¶46

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29018/2023

¶49

`PETITION`	`ER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`THE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING` `ORDER NO. AA1/PENSION/GENERAL/2018` `DATED 22.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER` `NO.1`
`Exhibit`	`P1(a)`	`THE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING` `ORDER NO.` `174A.DII(A)MOHANDAS/PENSION/2019 DATED` `24.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER` `NO.2`
`Exhibit`	`P1(b)`	`THE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING` `ORDER NO.` `8/A.DI(B)PREMALATHA/PENSION/2019 DATED` `16.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER` `NO.3`
`Exhibit`	`P1(c)`	`THE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING` `ORDER` `NO.42/A.DII(A)JOSEPH/PENSION/2019` `DATED 13.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER` `NO.4`
`Exhibit`	`P1(d)`	`THE COPY OF THE PENSION SANCTIONING` `ORDER NO.` `188A.DII(A)SUSHAMA/PENSION/2019 DATED` `19.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER` `NO.5`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. HO/ACCTS/CMO` `PORTAL/2021 DATED. 20.11.2021 ISSUED` `BY THE FINANCE MANAGER`

¶50

W.P.(C.) No.29018 of 2023

¶51

¶52

ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFLETTERDATED07.12.2021
SUBMITTEDTOTHEGRIEVANCEREDRESSAL
CELLUNDERTHECHIEFMINISTEROF
KERALA
ExhibitP4ACOPYOFTHEGOVERNMENTORDERNO.
3/2023/HSGDATED11.1.2023
ExhibitP5THECOPYOFTHEJUDGMENTDATED
27.7.2023INWP(C)NO.7419/2023AND
OTHERCONNECTEDCASESPASSEDBYTHE
HONOURABLEHIGHCOURTOFKERALA

Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary

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

Santha.K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakash P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sethumadhavan.T Vs Pranab Jyothi Nath.I.as

Jisha P K Vs State of Kerala

Jishnu G. Vs State of Kerala

Sathish Kumar.K Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc