IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4409 of 2009(Y)
1. P.T.VARGHESE, INS. NO.326972,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. E.S.I.CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. JOINT DIRECTOR, E.S.I.DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, E.S.I.CORPORATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.MANOJ KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.4409 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner submits that he suffered permanent disability
and that benefits arising therefrom as provided under the Employees
State Insurance Act were ordered to be given to him by the EI Court
as per Ext.P1 order. Accordingly, the petitioner has been receiving
the benefits.
2. While so, the petitioner made Ext.P2 claim on the ground
that subsequent to his becoming eligible for the benefits, there has
been periodical revision in the benefits, and that he should get the
benefits of such revisions. On that basis he raised a claim for
arrears of Rs.3,17,367/-. It is seen that Ext.P2 representation has
been considered and by Ext.P3 reply, the ESI Corporation has
informed the petitioner that there has not been any revision as
claimed by the petitioner. Ext.P3 also shows that this position was
clarified to the petitioner on previous occasions. It is challenging
Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed.
3. As noticed, the claim of the petitioner is for the benefits
WP(C) No.4409/2009
-2-
of the revision of ESI benefits, and this claim can be sustained only
if the petitioner is able to establish that there has been revision in
the benefits. No material has been produced by the petitioner in
support of this contention. In that view of the matter, I have
nothing to conclude that the stand taken by the respondents in
Ext.P3 rejecting his claim is erroneous.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg