IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 39191 of 2003(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.L INDIRAKUMARI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRAN NAIR, CHANDRALAYAM, CHERUKOLE P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, (JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED) PUTHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHUPPALLY) BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATIFF RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA 5. ARUVAPPULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARUVAPPULAM. R1 – R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 39191 of 2003(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. E3.4968/03 DATED 12.6.2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D5-14845/2000 DATED 18.5.2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER NO.G.2.2350/2000 DATED 28.6.2000. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. D5.14845/2000 DATED 30.6.2000 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 27.8.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.10.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.10.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl. A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 39191 of 2003 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging the action of the Department in not finalising the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on the allegation that the suspension period shown in Exts.P2 and P3 have not been regularised. The petitioner contended that the pension was provisionally accessed as per Ext.P1 and thereafter there is no communication regularising the pension showing the final position after regularising the suspension. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed counter affidavit inter alia stating that the suspension period of the petitioner was regularised as per order issued by the Director of Panchayat, Trivandrum vide order No.D6-14845/2000 dated 28.2.2004 and the pension re-fixed at Rs.3319/-. 3. In view of the above, I do not think that any further orders W.P.(C). No. 39191 of 2003 2 are required to be passed in the above writ petition. 4. Hence this writ petition is disposed of taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent. A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. Scl.