Allowed

K.N.Krishnankutty v. Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Kerala HC17 Jul 2024WP(C)/4060/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired toddy worker's pension claim under Circular No.318 was rejected as belated. The court held his application dated 30.09.2009 was within the prescribed deadline of 30.11.2009 and he was eligible under the scheme despite retiring before it commenced. Ext.P4 was set aside with directions to process the claim.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 set aside; respondents directed to process petitioner's pension application on merit and sanction eligible benefits within three months.

K.N.Krishnankutty Vs Kerala Toddy Workers… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.N.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O. NARAYANAN, KAIPPANAL HOUSE,
EZHUMUTTOM,THODUPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SRI.A.V.JOJO

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ULLOOR.P.O.,THIORUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶12

2 CHIEF WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ULLOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶13

3 WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, THODUPUZHA,685 584.

¶14

BY ADV.T.SANTHOSH, STANDING COUNSEL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2024

¶20

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Ext.P4 order, by which the claim for pension was declined. The petitioner was a toddy worker, who entered into service in the year 1973 in the toddy shop bearing No.8 of Ezhumuttom, Thodupuzha Range, Idukki District. Thereafter, the petitioner retired from service in the year 1987. Subsequently, on 30.09.2009, evident from Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted an application before the 3^rd respondent seeking pension in terms of Circular No.318 issued by the Toddy Workers Welfare Board. The same was considered and rejected stating that the petitioner had retired from service before the commencement of the pension scheme on 01.01.1997. Thus, Ext.P4 is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶21

A counter afÏdavit has been filed on behalf of the

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶24

respondents, in which it is specifically contended that the application for pension was declined on the ground of delay. However, it is conceded that relaxation was granted to the workers who had not submitted an application for pension up to 30.11.2009 as per Circular No. 318 based on the decision of the Board in its 487^th meeting held on 21.10.2009. However, according to the respondents, when the application was placed before the 509^th Board meeting held on 25.06.2011, the said application was rejected on the ground that the same was belated.

¶25

I have heard Adv. Sri. Jojo A.V., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv. Sri. T.Santhosh, the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even going by the averments contained in paragraph 3 of the counter afÏdavit, the pension scheme in Kerala Toddy Workers’ Welfare Fund Board was promulgated on 01.01.1997. According to Chapter VIA,

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶29

Rule 45A of the Kerala Toddy Workers’ Welfare Fund Scheme 1969, every member who was having not less than 10 years of continuous membership and retired in superannuation before or after the commencement of the scheme or permanently disabled or totally incapacitated for work due to prolonged illness before attaining the age of superannuation and having less than 10 years of membership in the fund shall be eligible for monthly pension.

¶30

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the application was submitted pursuant to Circular No.318 and within the prescribed time limit. ie. 30.11.2009, the application of the petitioner for pension could not have been rejected by the Board on the ground that the same is belated.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, in terms of the scheme, an appeal is preferred in form No.11 within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. Since the petitioner has not submitted any appeal, he is not entitled to any relief

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶34

sought for in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the application of the petitioner was belated and hence the Board was justified in rejecting the same. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised

¶35

across the Bar.

¶36

The only point requested to be considered is as to whether the application submitted by the petitioner was belated or not. Admittedly, the application was dated 30.09.2009 and the same is within the period prescribed in Circular 318. The last date for such applications was on 30.11.2009. It is also not disputed that the petitioner, who retired before the promulgation of the scheme, is also entitled to be considered for the pension in terms of eligibility under the prevailing rules. If that be so, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that the same is belated.

¶37

Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Hence, Ext.P4 is set aside. The respondents are directed to take in the petitioner’s

¶38

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶39

¶40

application and process the same on merit, and sanction the eligible benefits, if he is otherwise eligible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

¶42

Sd/-

EASWARAN S.

JUDGE

SPV

WP(C) NO. 4060 OF 2015

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4060/2015

¶49

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 3-1-
2011
EXHIBIT P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25-10-
2011 OBTAINED UNDER R.I.ACT.
EXHIBIT P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4-11-2011
OBTAINED UNDER R.I.ACT.
EXHIBIT P4-TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS OBTAINED
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶51

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:NIL

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

PA TO JUDGE

K.N.Krishnankutty v. Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Krishnankutty v. Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

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

Shylaja.K Vs State of Kerala

Saraswathy Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Money Lenders Association Vs the State of Kerala

Mary Jose Vs the State of Kerala

C.S.Madhusoodanan Vs the District Collector, Kottayam

T.v.Joy Vs State of Kerala