SAITHALAVI.O v. SECRETARY, KSEB
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. The facts as above, including the acquittal in the vigilance case and the acquittal in the disciplinary proceedings, is not disputed. In the circumstances as above, there is no reason why the pensionary benefits, to which the petitioner is eligible for, shall not be…
Judgment
SAITHALAVI.O AGED 58 YEARS GAZAL HOUSE, PO VADIYARANGADI 673 633, (VIA) RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SMT.VANDANA MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 2 SECRETARY, KSEB VAIDUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. CHIEF ENGINEER HRM KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. BY ADVS. DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMIT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Sathish Ninan, J. ============================== W.P(C) No.20876 of 2013 ============================== Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a retired employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board has approached this Court aggrieved by the non-disbursal of his pensionary benefits.
The petitioner retired from the services of the Board on 31.05.2010 as Assistant Engineer (Electrical). While in service, on 14.12.2007 he was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings alleging acceptance of bribe. The writ petition was filed seeking disbursal of pensionary benefits.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the Board. WP(C) NO.20876 OF 2013 -: 2 :-
The vigilance case registered against the petitioner ended in acquittal, as evidence by Ext.P8 judgment dated 22.01.2022. The disciplinary proceedings also culminated in the acquittal of the petitioner. Order in the said regard was passed on
29.04.2024 and a copy has been made available before this Court during the course of hearing. Therein it has been ordered that the period of suspension from 14.12.2007 to 19.06.2009 shall be treated as duty, for all benefits including pensionary benefits.
Operative part
The facts as above, including the acquittal in the vigilance case and the acquittal in the disciplinary proceedings, is not disputed. In the circumstances as above, there is no reason why the pensionary benefits, to which the petitioner is eligible for, shall not be disbursed without any further delay. WP(C) NO.20876 OF 2013 -: 3 :- Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to disburse all pensionary benefits due to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today. Needless to clarify that, the period of suspension shall be treated as eligible leave for the purpose of calculation of pension and other benefits. SVP Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge WP(C) NO.20876 OF 2013 -: 4 :- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20876/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.08.2011. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C. NO. 41/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE DATED 22.01.2022. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 25.08.2022 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT GHRANTING MINIMUM PENSION TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO.22941/2012 DATED 18/12/2012 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/12/2011 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.34051/2004 DATED 7/1/2005 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.