IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 529 of 2009()
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY HOME SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR.
3. SECRETARY,SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED
Vs
1. K.RAMESAN S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, HEAD
... Respondent
2. UNION OF INDA REP.BY MINISTRY OF HOME
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :10/07/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.529/2009 in
I.A.No.13467/08 in O.P. No.7768/1995
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009.
O R D E R
In the review petition, the prayer is to review the order dated
12.1.2009 whereby this court granted time up to 13.2.2009 to complete the
enquiry and if it is not completed, the respondents were directed to take
steps to disburse the retirement benefits legally due to the petitioner.
2. It is pointed out in the review petition that Section 16A of the
Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of issue of
community certificates (Amendment) Act, 2008 empowers the Government
to defer and withhold the pensionary benefits of the incumbent pending
decision by the Government or the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee has not completed the procedural formalities to determine the
caste status. It is pointed out that a show cause notice has been issued to the
petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee, to submit his explanation.
3. The writ petitioner has filed a counter affidavit opposing the
prayers in the review petition. It is pointed out that the review petitioners
are prolonging the enquiry like anything and even after rendering the
RP 529/09 in IA 13467/08
in OP 7768/95 2
judgment by this court on 20.6.2007 and granting extension of time up to
13.2.2009, the proceedings have not been finalised so far. Ext.R1(b) is the
copy of the registered lawyer notice issued to the respondents in the matter.
It is pointed out that only after that, the extension petition has been filed.
4. Regarding the applicability of Section 16A of the Act, it is
submitted that the same applies only to proceedings which are pending and
since this court had passed a peremptory order to complete the proceedings,
and since the same has not been completed, it is submitted that the review
petitioner cannot take the stand that the proceedings are pending.
5. This court passed the interim order on 12.1.2009 on the
application for extension of time. Time has been granted upto 13.2.2009,
fairly. It was directed that if the proceedings are not completed within the
time granted, the respondents will take necessary steps to disburse the
retirement benefits legally due to the petitioner. Going by Section 16A of
the Act, the respondents are empowered to defer the payment of pensionary
benefits during the pendency of the proceedings. The said provision was
not brought to the notice of this court when the order dated 12.1.2009 was
passed. Since there is a statutory injunction in the matter, the same had to
be considered. Therefore, there is an apparent error in the order dated
RP 529/09 in IA 13467/08
in OP 7768/95 3
12.1.2009 and the same has to be reviewed.
6. The question is whether the respondents could be given further
time to complete the proceedings. It is clear that the proceedings have not
been completed in spite of various directions issued by this court. Learned
Special Govt. Pleader submitted that the enquiry will be completed without
much delay, as the petitioner has already been issued a show cause notice.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the show
cause notice was served only on 1.7.2009.
In the light of the above, the review petition is disposed of in the
following manner:
The proceedings will be finalised within a period of two months from
today. The said time limit should be adhered to by the petitioners herein.
The direction to disburse the retirement benefits is vacated. The payment of
retirement benefits will depend upon the outcome of the final order to be
passed in the matter and the competent authority will consider the
grievances raised by the writ petitioner while passing orders.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/