High Court Kerala High Court

N.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
N.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 21 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29307 of 2010(K)


1. N.RAMACHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

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

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :21/10/2010

 O R D E R
                               S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
                   ---------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) NO. 29307 OF 2010
                    --------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010.

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner has retired from the service of the

Corporation of Cochin on 31.5.2006. Petitioner’s grievance in

this writ petition is that the retirement benefits due to the

petitioner is not being disbursed on the ground that petitioner

had filed Ext.P7 representation before the Government of Kerala

for revision of his pension. Petitioner therefore seeks the

following reliefs:-

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or
direction, directing the 3rd respondent to disburse the
amount sanctioned by Ext.P6 i.e DCRG and arrears of
pension forthwith;

ii) to command the respondents to reckon the period from
4.2.1997 to 6.8.1997 also i.e. the period from the date of
effective advice to the total qualifying service for the
calculation of pension;

iii)to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get minimum
pension reckoning the service from 4.2.1997;

iv)to command the 1st respondent to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P7, within two weeks;”

2. I have heard the standing counsel for the Corporation

also. The standing counsel does not dispute the fact that

retirement benefits due to the petitioner have not been disbursed

yet. According to the standing counsel some confusion arose

W.P.(C) NO. 29307 OF 2010 2

because of Ext.P7 representation and that is why the retirement

benefits due to the petitioner have not been disbursed. I do not

think that because of Ext.P7 representation there should be any

confusion for disbursing retirement benefits due to the petitioner.

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:-

Retirement benefits due to the petitioner shall be disbursed

within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The first respondent shall consider and pass orders on

Ext.P7 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after

affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If the

claim of the petitioner in Ext.P7 is allowed, the retirement benefits

shall be revised and arrears paid at that time, for which the

payment of retirement benefits allowable as of now need not be

postponed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE.

mns