IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20021 of 2010(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MRS.CELINE GEORGE,AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.K.J.JOSEPH,YMJRA 5/407 B,NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,ERNAKULAM.WORKING ASSISTANT EDITOR GROADE II(RTD),STATE INSTITUTE OF ENCYCLOPEDIC PUBLICATIONS,TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): STATE ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTELD BY SECRETARY,CULTURAL AFFAIRS,SECRETARIAT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,THE STATE INSTITUTE OF ENCYCLOPAEDIC PUBLICATIONS(S.I.R.P), TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE AUDIT OFFICER,LOCAL FUND AUDIT, STATE INSTITUTE OF ENCYCLOPAEDIC PUBLICATIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O,ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM R4 BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20021/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 4.2.2000. P2:- COPY OF THE ONE OF THE ORDERS BY WHICH DEPUTATION WAS EXTENDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 24.6.2002. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT GRANTING INCREMENTS, DTD. 24.6.2002. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 8.10.2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.12.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31.1.2003 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT GRANTING PROMOTION. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.3.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11.6.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DTD. 17.11.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 3.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P11:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 5.3.2010 OF the COCHIN UNIVERSITY. P12:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 9.12.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17.9.2009 OF THE IST RESPONDENT SANCTIONING PROVISIONAL PENSION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.38/2007/CAD DTD. 21.3.2007. R2(b):- COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.2081/10 H.ED. DTD. 28.10.2010. R2(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.785/E1/08/SIEP DTD. 11.11.2010. R2(d):- COPY OF THE DTD. 11.11.2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service of the respondent as Assistant Editor Grade-II with effect from 31.12.2008. Petitioner's grievance is that, the petitioner is not being paid retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension, etc. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders granting full pension to the petitioner, Commuted pension, Gratuity. ii) Direct the 1st respondent to ratify the deputation period of the petitioner in the Cochin University forthwith. iii) Direct the 2nd respondent to grant increments for the period when she had availed with permission, medical leave, and refix the salary and pensionery benefits. iv) Direct the respondents to grant the arrears of pensionery benefits as Item (ii) above with in a time frame. v) Direct the respondents to grant 18% interest on the above amount.” I have heard the learned Government Pleader, standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010 -2- standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. The delay in disbursal of retirement benefits due to the petitioner is on account of the fact that, pension contribution payable by the 4th respondent for the period the petitioner worked on deputation is not being paid by the 4th respondent. The counsel for the 2nd respondent has a contention that, the 4th respondent should also fix the pay and the pay fixation statement has to be approved by the 3rd respondent also. The counsel for the 4th respondent submits that, the amount demanded by the 2nd respondent is Rs.75,984/- and the pension contribution payable by the 4th respondent in respect to the petitioner is only Rs.67,560/-. He submits that, cheque for the said amount would be handed over to the 2nd respondent within two weeks. I am not going into the dispute regarding the amount. It is for the respondents 2 and 4 to settle the same between themselves. The correct amount of pension contribution payable by the 4th respondent in respect of the service of the petitioner shall be paid to the 2nd respondent W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010 -3- by the 4th respondent within two weeks. The 3rd respondent shall consider the pay fixation statement in respect of the petitioner and pass orders and forward the same to the 2nd respondent within one month. The petitioner shall be paid all retirement benefits with arrears within one month therefrom. The petitioner's claim for increment shall be considered by the 2nd respondent and orders passed within the above said time limit. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/- W.P.(C)No. 20021 of 2010 -4- shg/