High Court Kerala High Court

V.Kamalamma vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
V.Kamalamma vs State Of Kerala on 17 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26285 of 2009(E)


1. V.KAMALAMMA, AYODHYA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :17/09/2009

 O R D E R
                   C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009
               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009


                        J U D G M E N T

1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2

order of final determination issued by the second

respondent and Ext.P6 notice by which recovery steps are

initiated for realisation of the amounts covered under

Ext.P2, which pertains to contributions payable by the

employer for the years 1994 to 1996. The petitioner had

approached the appellate authority on an earlier occasion

and in Ext.P1 the second respondent was directed to pass

fresh orders. Ext.P2 order is issued consequent to the

direction contained in Ext.P1. With respect to the

subsequent period of 1996-97, the appellate authority had

remanded another determination order through Ext.P3

directing to conduct de nova enquiry and to pass fresh

orders of determination. In that case, the appellate

authority had specifically directed the second respondent to

consider the contention for deleting the name of the

W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009
2

husband of the petitioner who is cited as an employee

(driver of the bus service), from the list of workers for

whom contributions are payable. On the basis of the

direction of the appellate authority, revised assessment

order was issued as evidenced by Ext.P4. The second

respondent accepted the contention and deleted name of

the husband of the petitioner from the list of employees.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of

the findings in Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent had not revised

Ext.P2 determination order, pertaining to the previous

period of 1994-96, deleting the name of the petitioner’s

husband and reducing the contribution payable accordingly.

In this regard the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 representation

before the first respondent seeking necessary directions.

Now pending consideration and disposal of Ext.P5

representation, recovery steps have been initiated as

evidenced by Ext.P6. Hence the writ petition.

W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009
3

2. Heard standing counsel appearing for the second

respondent. It is contended that Ext.P2 order of final

determination pertaining to the period 1994-1996 was

issued as early as on 31.12.1998 and the petitioner has not

opted to file any appeal against the said order. Since Ext.P2

had attained finality, the same cannot be revised in view of

the findings in Ext.P3 appeal or on the basis of Ext.P4

revised order.

3. On the facts of the case, I find that the petitioner

ought to have been assessed with respect to two employees

only, since the husband of the petitioner who is working as

driver is held as not an employee entitled to get

contributions from welfare fund. But the facts remains that

the final determination order with respect to the years 1994

to 1996 had already attained finality because there was no

appeal. Hence on merits the contention raised by the

petitioner cannot be considered by this court for granting

any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

W.P(C) No.26285 of 2009
4

that the Government being the higher executive authority,

necessary directions can be issued on the basis of Ext.P5.

It is for the petitioner to pursue such remedies if available

before the Government, and it is for the Government to

decide as to whether any relief can be granted on Ext.P5

petition.

4. Having considered the entire facts, I am inclined

to direct to keep in abeyance recovery steps initiated

pursuant to Ext.P6 notice for a period of two months in

order to facilitate the petitioner to take appropriate steps

before the Government to pursue Ext.P5, if it is sustainable,

on condition of the petitioner paying an amount of

Rs.15,000/- out of the amount covered under Ext.P2, within

a period of one month from today.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE

app/-