IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 24321 of 1998(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUKUMARAN N., SARASWATHY BHAVAN, PANGAPPARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, R2 BY MR.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 24321/1998-U: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 42798/1998 IN O.P. NO.24321/1998-U CLOSED 17/12/2009. SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 24321 of 1998 ================== Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired as an NMR worker of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, on 3.1.1995. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P1 pension payment order was issued to the petitioner. Thereafter the Government, by Ext.P2 order dated 22.8.1996, revised the salary of contingent employees with effect from 1.4.1994. That order was modified by Ext.P3 order, by which, an enhancement of at least Rs.100/- was ensured for all content employees. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has not been given the benefits of Exts.P2 and P3 orders and consequent retirement benefits. 2. The 2nd respondent is stated to have filed a statement, which is not in the file. The counsel for the petitioner has made available a copy received by him. In the same, the eligibility of the petitioner as contingent employee for revision of pay under Exts.P2 and P3 is admitted. But the difficulty expressed therein is that the petitioner's service book is missing from the Section and that is why further proceedings could not be taken in the matter. 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the Government can take action in the matter of grant of pension only after his salary is revised as per Exts.P2 and P3 and his service book submitted accordingly, which the Corporation has not done so far. o.p.24321/98 2 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Both the respondents admit that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits as per Exts.P2 and P3 and that has not been given to the petitioner. Both have no case that non-grant of the benefits is on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, it is the duty of respondents 1 and 2 to take such action as is necessary for enabling the petitioner to get the arrears of salary and revised retirement benefits as per Exts.P2 and P3. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall reconstruct the service book of the petitioner if the same is not available with them and endorse thereon the benefits due to the petitioner in accordance with Exts.P2 and P3 appropriately. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if not already done. Thereafter, the same shall be forwarded to the 1st respondent for appropriate revision of pension. The Government shall pass orders regarding revision of pension, if not already done, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the service book from the 2nd respondent as directed above. Monetary benefits due to the petitioner on account of the revision in pay and revision in pension shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.24321/98 3 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== o.p.24321/98 4 O.P.No. 24321 of 1998-U ================== J U D G M E N T 17th December, 2009