High Court Kerala High Court

P.M. Ponnamma vs The Managing Director on 3 April, 2007

Kerala High Court
P.M. Ponnamma vs The Managing Director on 3 April, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 39187 of 2003(M)


1. P.M. PONNAMMA, KARIYAMVILA PUTHEN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGER, K.S.C.D.C. FACTORY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

                For Respondent  :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :03/04/2007

 O R D E R
                           T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

                       -  - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                         W.P.(C).NO.39187 of 2003-M

                       - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    Dated this  the 3rd  day of April, 2007


                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner was working as Podiyeduppu Mycaud in the factory

owned by the respondents. According to the petitioner, her date of birth is

3.4.1946 and in support of her claim, she has produced Ext.P1 E.S.I. Card.

The dispute arose when Ext.R1(a) was forwarded by the employer to the

Provident Fund Commission, wherein the year of birth was shown as 1943.

The petitioner had put in her signature also in Ext.R1(a).

2. The petitioner approached this court to quash Ext.P2 and for a

direction to the respondents to permit her to continue in srvice till she

attains the age of 60 years. This court as per an interim order dated

18.12.2003, restrained the respondents from terminating the service of the

petitioner on the ground of superannuation, for a period of three months

from 1.1.1004. It was also made clear that during that period the petitioner

shall not be eligible for pension and this interim order was continuing

throughout. The petitioner continued in service upto 31.12.2006. Now

what remains is only her claim for continued payment of pension.

Admittedly the petitioner has worked upto 31.12.2006. The third

18557/2006 -2-

respondent will have to recalculate the pension and other benefits which the

petitioner is entitled to and take appropriate action for disbursement of the

same. For the purpose of calculating the pension and payment of other

benefits, at this stage it is not necessary to go into the controversy whether

her year of birth is 1943 or 1946 and that question is left open. It is a

disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in a writ petition also.

The third respondent is directed to recalculate the pension payable to the

petitioner and take action to disburse the same within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/