IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 32499 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.HUSSAINAR, S/O. KUNJUTTI RAWTHER, "SIMI MANZIL", NATTINPPURAM, P.O. MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR. 2. K.K. MUKUNDAN, S/O. KUNJAN, KURIAPPILLIL HOUSE, P.O.NETTOOR,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001 2. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, EXCISE COMMISSIONARATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE THRISSUR. 680 001 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM.680 018 5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32499 of 2010(J) PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE EXCISE INSPECTORS FROM 1.11.1956 TO 9.10.1985 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.8.2009 EXT.P3: TRUE COY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2009 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATE 21.10.2009 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.1.2010 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 7.9.1981 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 29.5.2010 EXT.P8: TRUECOY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.5.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 32499 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are retirees from the Excise Department. They retired from service as Excise Inspectors respectively on 30.6.1992 and 31.1.1995. Earlier, the petitioners had approached the authorities for re-fixation and also for re-commutation of pensionary benefits taking into account the notional promotion. Ultimately, in the case of the first petitioner it was done in terms of Ext.P8 order. Evidently, as per Ext.P8 after considering the request of the first petitioner pensionary benefits were revised as per Ext.P8 taking into account the notional promotion granted to him. The subsisting grievance of the first petitioner is that even after the issuance of Ext.P8 it was not implemented. The respondents have not disbursed the benefits flowing from Ext.P8, it is submitted. In regard to the second petitioner though he is similarly situated to the first petitioner his claim for similar reliefs remains unattended even now. Ext.P7 is the representation submitted by the second petitioner for extending similar benefits. The contention of the second petitioner is that there is no reason to discriminate him in WPC No.32499/2010 2 the matter and he is also entitled to get the benefits granted to the first petitioner as per Ext.P8. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, the grievance of the first petitioner was looked into and decided in his favour as per Ext.P8. However, the decision in Ext.P8 is yet to be implemented. The respondents have not taken appropriate action for disbursing the benefits flowing from Ext.P8. In the said circumstances, the competent among the respondents shall take appropriate steps for disbursing the benefits payable to the first petitioner in the light of Ext.P8 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. As already noticed, as regards the second petitioner, the respondents are yet to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the second petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that while passing orders on Ext.P7 the second respondent shall take into account Ext.P8, as well. There will be a further direction that the respondents to take WPC No.32499/2010 3 appropriate steps for the disbursal of the benefits to the second petitioner expeditiously in case of a favourable decision on Ext.P7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma