IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25848 of 2008(B)
1. KORAH POTHEN, RETIRED ROAD WORKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D.ROADS
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B & R DIVISION
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
P.N.Ravindran, J.
=====================
W.P(C).No.25848 of 2008
=====================
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. K.Surendra Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt. Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service on
31.10.1994. When his N.M.R. service prior to his C.L.R. service was not
reckoned for the purpose of pensinary benefits, he moved the State
Government and thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.16134 of 2004 in this Court.
By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 23.1.2007 in W.P.(C) No.16134 of 2004
to which the Accountant General (A&E) Kerala was also a party, this Court
directed that the petitioner’s service as N.M.R. worker from 1963
onwards shall be reckoned for the purpose of computing the total length
of service and for calculating the pensionary benefits. There was also a
direction to the respondents including the Accountant General to
recalculate the pensionary benefits and pay the same expeditiously.
Pursuant to the said direction, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads
Sub Division, Pala addressed the Executive Engineer, Roads Division,
Kottayam in Ext.P3 letter dated 11.5.2007 requesting that the revised
pensionary benefits may be sanctioned and authorisation obtained and
communicated early. On the basis of Ext.P3, the Executive Engineer
moved the Accountant General in Ext.P4 letter dated 10.7.2007. In
WP(C) 25848/08 -: 2 :-
Ext.P4 letter dated 10.7.2007 the Executive Engineer requested the
Accountant General to revise the pensionary claims of the petitioner at
the earliest. The petitioner’s grievance is that notwithstanding the expiry
of more than one year, steps have not been take by the Accountant
General to revise his pensionary benefits as recommended by the
Executive Engineer and the Assistant Executive Engineer in Exts.P3 and
P4.
3. When this Writ Petition came up for admission on 27.8.2008,
the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents was
directed to get instructions from the fourth respondent and to file a
statement setting out the steps taken by him pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and the request made by the
Executive Engineer in Ext.P4 letter. There was also a direction to file a
statement within three weeks. The Writ Petition was also ordered to be
posted on 15.9.2008. On 15.9.2008, the learned Government Pleader
prayed for two weeks further time to get instructions and file a
statement. That request was also granted. This Writ Petition thereafter
came up on 6.10.2008. On 6.10.2008 also, as requested by the learned
Government Pleader two weeks further time was granted. It is regretful
to note that even today, though two months have passed after the Writ
Petition first came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader
submits that she has not been able to get instructions from the fourth
respondent.
WP(C) 25848/08 -: 3 :-
4. The petitioner is a pensioner aged 72 years. By Ext.P2 judgment
which has become final and to which the Accountant General is a party,
this Court had directed expeditious disbursement of revised pensionary
benefits reckoning the service rendered by the petitioner as N.M.R.
Worker. The petitioner’s superior officers promptly complied with the
directions issued by this Court and they moved the Accountant General
within time. For no fault of the petitioner or his superior officers, he is
yet to get the benefits flowing from Ext.P2 judgment. Though this Writ
Petition was filed on 26.8.2008 and has come up for admission hearing
on four occasions, this Court has not been informed of any reason much
less any cogent reason for not complying with the directions issued by
this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. Ext.P2 judgment has become final and
the directions therein bind the fourth respondent also. In these
circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the fourth
respondent to implement Ext.P2 judgment and forthwith sanction
revised pensionary benefits to the petitioner in the manner suggested in
Exts.P3 and P4 and the papers accompanying the same. This shall be
done within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces
a certified copy of this judgment.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 4/11