IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35671 of 2008(V)
1. K.P.JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS
... Petitioner
2. S.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
3. SMT. A. FATHIMAKUNNU
4. R.BALAN
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO
... Respondent
2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :03/12/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) NO: 35671 of 2008
-----------------------------
Dated this 3rd day of December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.Sharan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The Petitioners are pensioners. They retired from service
while they were working as Joint Registers in the Co-operation
Department. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Ext.P6
order dated 21-10-2008 passed by the State Government under Rule
59(b) of Part III of the Kearala State and Subordinate Services Rules
reducing their pension permanently by Rs.150 per mensem. The
petitioners submit with reference to the averments in ground D of
the writ petition that they were associated with the functioning of
the Labour Contract Society only for a limited period and that the
decision taken by the Government to reduce their pension cannot
therefore be sustained. The petitioners also submit that before
Ext.P6 was passed they were also not heard in the matter.
3. Note (1) to Rule 59 (b) of Part III of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules stipulates that the Government may
review their orders if the pensioner makes a request in that regard
within a period of three months from the date of the order reducing
wpc:35671 of 2008
2
pension. In the instant case the order reducing the pension was
passed on 21-10-2008. The period of three months stipulated in
Note 1 has not yet expired. Further Ext.P6 does not disclose
that the contentions set out by the petitioner in ground D of the
Writ Petition were considered by the Government.
In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
petitioners should move the Government seeking a review of
Ext.P6. The petitioners shall within one month from today
submit an appropriate petition before the Government seeking a
review of Ext.P6. The Government shall within three months
thereafter hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders
thereon after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being
heard. It is clarified that I have not pronounced upon the merits
of the contentions raised by the petitioners and that if they are
aggrieved by the order passed by the Government on review, it
will be open to them to challenge Ext.P6 and also the order
passed on the review petition in other appropriate proceedings.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE