IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 19496 of 2011(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 61, S/O.LATE M.KUTTAPPAN, MADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE (RETIRED PROJECT OFFICER, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH,SC,KERALA KHADI BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.19605 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.19496/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11115/06 DATED 5/4/10. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER KB 3139/2010/E4 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 15/6/10. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB5580/10/E3 DATED 18/9/10. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KB 402/02/A11 DATED 15/3/11, RESPONDENT SANCTIONED REVISED PENSION. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/5/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)Nos.19496 and 19605 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners in both these writ petitions are retired employees of the Khadi Board. Since their claims are identical, these writ petitions are considered and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(c) No.19605/2011 retired from service on 31.8.2002. On 9.9.1997, while working as Junior Superintendent, he was served with a memo of charges. On the basis of the said notice, he was placed under suspension. Later on, he was reinstated in service on 1.11.2001. Thereafter, he retired from service on 31.8.2002. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(c) No.19496 of 2011 was working as a Project Officer of the Khadi Board. He retired from service on 31.3.2002. While working as Project Officer, on 9.9.1997, he was served with a memo of charges and on the basis of that he was placed under WPC No.19496 &19605 of 2011 2 suspension. He was reinstated in service on 1.11.2001. It was in the above circumstances that he retired from service on 31.3.2002. 4. Both the petitioners were given only provisional pension with effect from 1.4.2002. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the action of the respondent by filing W.P.(c)Nos.21502 of 2004 and 21503 of 2004 respectively for the disbursement of their retirement benefits. This Court by order dated 15.3.2005 directed that the pensionary benefits should be disbursed to them provisionally, within a period of two months, subject to the result of this writ petition. Pursuant to the said order, the pensionary benefits were disbursed to the petitioners. 5. While so, as per separate show cause notices dated 26.8.2005, the petitioners were directed to show cause why an amount of Rs.100/- be not deducted from their pension for five years and why the suspension period should not be treated as non-duty. The case of the petitioners is that ignoring their reply, the amount was being deducted from their pension. The above action was WPC No.19496 &19605 of 2011 3 challenged by them in W.P.(c)Nos.11115 of 2006 and 11122 of 2006. Both the writ petitions were allowed and the orders that were under challenge were quashed. Subsequently, as per Ext.P2 proceedings, both the petitioners were exonerated of all the charges levelled against them. Their suspension period was directed to be treated as duty for all purposes. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the above proceedings clearly show that the pensionary benefits due to the petitioners were withheld without any justification. Therefore, they have filed these writ petitions seeking the grant of interest on the delayed pension. The petitioners have submitted representations before the respondent claiming interest. Separate representations submitted by them are produced, marked as Exts.P5 in both the writ petitions. The petitioners seek the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of their representations. 7. I have heard the standing counsel for the respondent also. Though the standing counsel has sought WPC No.19496 &19605 of 2011 4 for some time to file counter affidavit in the matter, I do not think a counter affidavit is necessary in this case, in the nature of the order that I am proposing to pass. 8. Since the grievance of the petitioners set out in their representations, evidenced herein by Ext.P5 are pending consideration of the respondents, it is sufficient that they are directed to be considered and disposed of within a short time. 9. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioners set out in their representations evidenced by Ext.P5 in both the writ petitions, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE WPC No.19496 &19605 of 2011 5