IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7544 of 2006(W) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.A. HAJARA, W/O. LATE P.K.KUNJUMOHAMMED HANEEFA MANZIL, KUMBALAM P.O., COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REP. BY CHIEF ACCOUNTANTS OFFICER, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. 2. DEPUTY TRAFFIC MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 & 2 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7544 of 2006(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF PAY SLIP OF JANUARY 1997. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF PAY SLIP OF FEBRURARY 1997. EXT.P1(b): COPY OF PAY SLIP OF MARCY 1997. EXT.P2: COPY OF GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER DTD 25.4.97. EXT.P3: COPY OF GRATUITY PAYMENT ORDER 28.10.97. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER OF R2 DATED 6.4.1998. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.11762/98 DATED 5.4.04. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER OF R2 DATED 30.7.04. EXT.P6(a): COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL DATED 24.1.2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7544 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the widow of late Sri. P.K. Kunju Mohammed, who retired from the service of the Cochin Port Trust on 31.3.1997. The said Sri. Kunju Mohammed filed O.P.No.11762/98 disputing the quantum of retirement benefits paid to the petitioner. During the pendency of that original petition, the said Sri. P.K. Kunju Mohammed died. The petitioner and other legal heirs of the Sri. P.K.Kunju Mohammed were impleaded as additional petitioners in the original petition, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing reconsideration of the issue. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P6 order has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that all retirement benefits due to late Sri. P.K. Kunju Mohammed was paid to him based on the qualifying service as per rules. W.P.(C)No.7544/06 2 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. In the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, it is specifically stated that the service of Sri. P.K. Kunju Mohammed prior to 26.3.1969 as a 'C' Class Mazdoor is not eligible for being counted as qualifying service for retirement benefits and excluding that service he had only 28 years of qualifying service. The retirement benefits due to Sri. P.K. Kunju Mohammed based on that qualifying service had already been paid. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated thus:- “The allegation of the petitioner that her husband had been discriminated in the matter of payment of DCRG compared to similarly situated laborers as evident from Ext.P3 is also not correct. It has been clearly stated in Ext.P6 that the gratuity of shore laborers ie., Mazdoors and leaders of the Port Trust who receive piece rate are calculated taking into account the average of basic pay, VDA and piece rate paid to them for the 3 months prior to their retirement. But the petitioner's husband could not attend the piece rate works as per the advice of the Chief Medical Officer of the Port Trust. Hence his gratuity was calculated without taking the piece rate into consideration, as he had not earned such benefits. Accordingly his gratuity, pension, commuted value of pension were fixed as shown in Ext.P6. The person mentioned in Ext.P3 stands on a different footing in as much as he was getting the benefit of piece rate.” The petitioner has not chosen to controvert those pleadings by filing any reply affidavit. As such there is nothing before me W.P.(C)No.7544/06 3 to hold that Sri. P.K. Kunju Mohammed is entitled to any additional retirement benefits than what has already been paid. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.7544/06 4