IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20021 of 2010(C)
1. MRS.CELINE GEORGE,AGED 56 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTELD BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,THE STATE INSTITUTE OF
3. THE AUDIT OFFICER,LOCAL FUND AUDIT,
4. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
For Petitioner :SMT.JEENA JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/12/2010
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner retired from service of the respondent
as Assistant Editor Grade-II with effect from 31.12.2008.
Petitioner’s grievance is that, the petitioner is not being
paid retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, commuted
value of pension, etc. The petitioner therefore seeks the
following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to
consider and pass appropriate orders granting full
pension to the petitioner, Commuted pension, Gratuity.
ii) Direct the 1st respondent to ratify the deputation period
of the petitioner in the Cochin University forthwith.
iii) Direct the 2nd respondent to grant increments for the
period when she had availed with permission, medical
leave, and refix the salary and pensionery benefits.
iv) Direct the respondents to grant the arrears of pensionery
benefits as Item (ii) above with in a time frame.
v) Direct the respondents to grant 18% interest on the
above amount.”
I have heard the learned Government Pleader,
standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the
W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010
-2-
standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. The
delay in disbursal of retirement benefits due to the
petitioner is on account of the fact that, pension
contribution payable by the 4th respondent for the period
the petitioner worked on deputation is not being paid by the
4th respondent. The counsel for the 2nd respondent has a
contention that, the 4th respondent should also fix the pay
and the pay fixation statement has to be approved by the
3rd respondent also. The counsel for the 4th respondent
submits that, the amount demanded by the 2nd respondent is
Rs.75,984/- and the pension contribution payable by the
4th respondent in respect to the petitioner is only
Rs.67,560/-. He submits that, cheque for the said amount
would be handed over to the 2nd respondent within two
weeks. I am not going into the dispute regarding the
amount. It is for the respondents 2 and 4 to settle the same
between themselves. The correct amount of pension
contribution payable by the 4th respondent in respect of the
service of the petitioner shall be paid to the 2nd respondent
W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010
-3-
by the 4th respondent within two weeks. The 3rd respondent
shall consider the pay fixation statement in respect of the
petitioner and pass orders and forward the same to the
2nd respondent within one month. The petitioner shall be
paid all retirement benefits with arrears within one month
therefrom. The petitioner’s claim for increment shall be
considered by the 2nd respondent and orders passed within
the above said time limit.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN
JUDGE
shg/-
W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010
-4-
shg/