High Court Kerala High Court

V.M.Ashraf vs State Of Kerala Rep.By Principal on 2 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
V.M.Ashraf vs State Of Kerala Rep.By Principal on 2 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14353 of 2008(H)


1. V.M.ASHRAF,MANJALI KARA,KARUMALLOOR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PRINCIPAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD

3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,VIGILANCE,

4. ASST.TRANSPORT OFFICER,

5. ZONAL OFFICER,KERALA STATE ROAD

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :02/06/2008

 O R D E R
                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                 --------------------------------------
                 W.P.C. NO. 14353 OF 2008 H
                 --------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 2nd June, 2008

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner has retired from the service of the respondent

Corporation while working as a Mechanic on 30.11.2007. His

complaint is that he has not received his pension and other

retirement benefits. Today, when the matter came up, learned

counsel for petitioner has produced before me an order dated

24.5.2008 issued by the Executive Director (Vigilance),

KSRTC. Therein, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:

“I have gone through the entire file in

detail. In view of the finding in the enquiry and

re-enquiry, further action against Shri V.M.

Asharaf, Mechanic, North Paravoor is dropped.

Period under suspension is treated as duty.”

2. There is reference made to the detailed enquiry and the

Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty and in the re-

enquiry also, it was found that he was not guilty. I heard the

WPC. 14353/08 H 2

learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent

Corporation also. I feel that in the light of this development, the

claim of the petitioner for grant of retirement benefits, like

Pension, Provident Fund and Staff Welfare Fund should receive

the attention of the second respondent. Accordingly, the Writ

Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to

consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of Pension,

Provident Fund as also Staff Welfare Fund. The second

respondent shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with

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

copy of this Judgment, and the amounts found due, shall be

disbursed to the petitioner within a period of one month

thereafter. Petitioner will also be entitled to statutory interest on

the Provident Fund amount from the due date till the date of

payment.

K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.