Partly allowed

Sarala v. Union of India Represented by General Manager

Kerala HC5 Feb 2024RP/55/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought review of a Kerala High Court judgment directing the Railways to disburse all eligible amounts, claiming statutory interest had been denied due to an error in recording submissions. The court allowed the review, directing payment of eligible amounts including entitled interest within three months, upon production of documents.

What did the court decide?

Payment of all eligible amounts including entitled interest by respondents 2/3 within three months; petitioners to produce relevant documents within two weeks.

Sarala Vs Union of India Represented by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 16TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 55 OF 2024

¶6

JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2023

¶7

ARISING FROM : WP(C) 3654/2023

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)//PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶9

1 SARALA, AGED 65 YEARS W/O. SUKUMARAN KANNITTA VELI S N PURAM CHERTHALA, PIN – 68858.

¶10

2 PURUSHAN P., AGED 52 YEARS S/O. SMT. MANKA KOCHUPARAMBIL CHIRA S L PURAM, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA -, PIN – 688523.

¶11

3MICHAEL K.O, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.OUSEPH ALIAS VAKKACHAN KANNIMEL
MARARIKULAM NORTH ALAPUZHA -, PIN – 688523.

¶12

BY ADV A.P.JAYARAJ (ANJILIKKAL)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/?RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶14

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN P.O, CHENNAI, PIN – 600001.

¶15

2 ASST. DIVISIONAL ENGINER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOLLAM, PIN – 691001.

¶16

3 SECTION ENGINEER PERMANENT WAY SOUTHERN RAILWAY ALAPUZHA, PIN – 688523.

¶17

4 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688524. BY ADV SHRIHARI RAO K

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RP NO. 55 OF 2024 in WP(C)3654/2023

¶20

-2-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition, seeking Review of the
judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2023, has
been impelled by the petitioners, saying that,

¶23

though, statutorily, they are entitled to

¶24

interest, it has been denied to them, perhaps on
account of an error in recording the submissions
of the rival parties.

¶25

2.Smt.P.K.Nandini – learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioners, pointed out to Ext.P7 judgment
in the writ petition, to explain that, in a

¶27

similar matter, this Court has already granted
interest at the rate of 12% per annum; but that,
on account of the directions in the judgment
sought to be reviewed, this has been denied to
her clients. She thus prayed that the judgment,
to the extent impugned, be reviewed.

¶28

3.Sri.K.Shrihari Rao – learned Standing

¶29

Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted

¶30

RP NO. 55 OF 2024 in WP(C)3654/2023

¶31

-3-

¶32

that the facts in Ext.P7 are different from

¶33

those involved in this case; and therefore,
that, while the exercise as ordered by this
Court is taken forward, the entitlement of the
petitioners to the eligible interest will also
be taken into account and reflected in the
resultant order. He then added that the
petitioners must produce a valid Legal Heirship
Certificate qua the deceased, as also their bank
credentials and PAN Card before the competent
Authority, so as to complete the exercise
ordered in the judgment.

¶34

4.I must say upfront that I find favour

¶35

with the submissions of Smt.P.K.Nandini because,

¶36

when this Court directed the respondents to
ensure that all eligible amounts are disbursed
to the petitioners, it certainly took into
account the entitled interest also. In fact, the
reliance of the petitioners on Ext.P7 judgment

¶37

RP NO. 55 OF 2024 in WP(C)3654/2023

¶38

-4-

¶39

is on good ground.

¶40

5.That being said, the further request of
Sri.K.Shrihari Rao, that the petitioners produce

¶41

the aforementioned documents, certainly requires

¶42

to be considered; and I record that this is
acceded to by Smt.P.K.Nandini.

¶43

In the afore circumstances, I allow this
Review Petition; and in partial modification of
the judgment in question, I direct the competent
among respondents 2 and 3 to pay all eligible
amounts to the petitioners, which will take in
the entitled interest as mentioned in Exts.P4 to
P6 in the writ petition, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

Adscititiously, the petitioners are hereby

¶45

directed to produce all relevant documents,
including the aforementioned ones, before the
competent Authority, within a period of two

¶46

RP NO. 55 OF 2024 in WP(C)3654/2023

¶47

-5-

¶48

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶49

judgment.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

akv

Sarala v. Union of India Represented by General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarala v. Union of India Represented by General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnan v Vs State Bank of India SBI

N.Sreedharan Nair Vs C.S. Prashoban

Kerala Gandhi Smaraka Nidhi Vs State of Kerala

Fr. Joseph Koluthuvelil Vs Meera. K. IAS

Suresh G Vs Kerala Water Authority

K. P. Gopinathan Vs Reserve Bank of India