Allowed

K.Venugopal v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala HC24 Nov 2023WP(C)/31635/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition addressed the petitioner's claim for non-payment of retirement benefits post-superannuation. The High Court held that financial stringency cannot justify withholding terminal benefits and directed the respondents to disburse all due amounts within four months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to disburse all retirement benefits within four months, with 6% interest if delayed.

K.Venugopal Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 31635 OF 2023

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

K.VENUGOPAL
AGED57YEARS,S/ODIVAKARAKURUP
(CONDUCTOR,KSRTC,ANGAMALIDEPOT,RETIREDON
31.5.2022),RESIDINGATKALARICKALHOUSE,
MANICKAMANGALAM.P.O,KALADY,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,
PIN-683574

¶5

BYADVK.P.RAJEEVAN

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶8

2 DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶9

3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101

¶10

SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC

¶11

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON24.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P(C) No.31635 of 2023

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner states that while working as a Conductor in Kerala

¶16

State Road Transport Corporation, he attained superannuation on 31.5.2022. The grievance of the petitioner concerns non payment of retirement benefits due to the petitioner. The prayer sought for is as under:

¶17

i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and disburse minimum monthly pension with arrears, the amount of DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Surrender, benefits on account of pay revision, arrears of salary and other eligible benefits with interest to the petitioner immediately.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P1 Pension Payment Order would disclose that the pension to which the petitioner is entitled is Rs.5,486/- per mensem. The learned counsel would point out that in terms of Ext P2, the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.10,205/- towards pension. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner herein, after retirement, had to undergo renal transplantation surgery on 25.4.2023. Reliance is placed on Ext.P5 medical records to substantiate his contention. According to the learned counsel, as

¶19

W.P(C) No.31635 of 2023

¶20

¶21

early as on 24.03.2023 itself, the petitioner had submitted a representation requesting the Corporation to disburse the retirement benefits due to the petitioner herein. He would submit that as per Ext.P2, the respondents

¶22

were bound to pay a minimum monthly pension of Rs.4500/-, which also has not been paid. He is also entitled to the amount of DCRG, Commuted Value of Pension, Leave Surrender etc.

¶23

The learned Standing Counsel would point out that the Corporation is facing dire financial stringency and they are not in a position to pay the amount.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records.

¶25

I find that the petitioner attained superannuation sometime in the month of May, 2022. The Pension Payment Orders have already been issued, as evident from Exts.P1 and P2. This Court, in numerous cases, has held that withholding terminal benefits not only jeopardizes the financial stability of pensioners like the petitioner herein 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 petitioner depend on

¶26

W.P(C) No.31635 of 2023

¶27

¶28

a fixed, 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 petitioner, find it challenging to afford essential 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 pensioners. In that view of the matter, I hold that the reasons offered by the respondents for not disbursing the benefits cannot be accepted. In Vijay L. Mahrotra v. State of U.P & others¹ , 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.

¶29

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

¶30

a) There will be a direction to the respondents to disburse all retiral benefits due to the petitioner, including pension, DCRG, Pension Commutation, Terminal Earned Leave

¶31

1 2001 (9) SCC 687

¶32

W.P(C) No.31635 of 2023

¶33

¶34

Surrender and Pension and salary Arrears, expeditiously, in any event, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the amount is not paid as ordered, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date the amount becomes due.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶37

IAP

¶38

W.P(C) No.31635 of 2023

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31635/2023

¶41

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:

¶42

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF 1ST TO 3RD PAGES OF PENSION PAYMENT` `ORDER OF THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2115/GL8(LR)/2022 - RTC` `DATED 8.7.2022`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 22.3.2023` `ISSUED BY THE LEAD SR. CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF` `NEPHROLOGY, ASTER MEDCITY, KOCHI`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24.3.2023` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 6.5.2023` `ISSUED BY THE SR. CONSULTANT, NEPHROLOGY, ASTER` `MEDCITY, KOCHI`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.8.2002 OF THE` `HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO` `APPEAL (CIVIL) NOS.448-454/2002`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2002 IN` `W.A.NO.289 OF 2001 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE` `HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.4.2008 OF THE HON'BLE` `SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL` `NO(S).5401-5407 OF 2002`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN R.P.NO.1131 OF 2022 AND` `CONNECTED CASES DATED 16.2.2023`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.4.2023 IN W.A.NO.700` `OF 2023 AND CONNECTED CASES`

K.Venugopal v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Venugopal v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

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

Jenny Jose.M. Vs State of Kerala

Johny Joseph Vs High Court of Kerala

Ramlath K., Vs State of Kerala

The Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

Dr.Thomas Koilparambil, Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan.M Vs M/S India Telephone Industries Limited