High Court Kerala High Court

Elizabeth Thomas vs Director Of Municipal … on 17 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Elizabeth Thomas vs Director Of Municipal … on 17 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17960 of 2008(K)


1. ELIZABETH THOMAS, AGED 56,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

                For Respondent  :SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :17/06/2008

 O R D E R
                             V.GIRI,J.
                      -------------------------
                  W.P ( C) No.17960 of 2008
                      --------------------------
               Dated this the 17th June, 2008

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner, who retired from the Kochi Corporation

on 30.4.2007 as U.D Clerk, is aggrieved that the

retirement benefits due to her have not been disbursed so

far. Petitioner entered into Municipal Common Service as

Bill Collector in the year 1993 and in 1998 she was

promoted as LDC. Having crossed the age of 50 years,

she was exempted from acquiring the test qualification

and was promoted as UDC in 2003. While so, she retired

from service on 30.4.2007. Apparently, petitioner’s

probation in the post of LDC was not declared even

though the petitioner had retired from service on

30.4.2007. This seems to be evident from Exhibit-P2,

which is the reminder sent by the Secretary of the Kochi

Corporation to the Director of Urban Affairs.

2. Exhibit P2 reveals that there is unjustified delay in

the office of the Director of Urban Affairs in declaring the

W.P ( C) No.17960 of 2008
2

probation of the petitioner and similarly situated persons in

the post of LDC/UDC. Apparently, request was made in

2006 i.e. before the persons concerned actually retired

from the service. It is difficult to understand how there

could be any confusion regarding the declaration of

probation since the petitioner has retired from service.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the 1st respondent to pass orders in the matter of

declaration of probation of the petitioner in the post of

LDC, within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon orders shall be

passed sanctioning the retirement benefits due to the

petitioner within one month thereafter. The entire process

shall be completed within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.17960 of 2008
2

W.P ( C) No.17960 of 2008
2