IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16672 of 2011(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. DAS K., KOTTARAMTHOPPIL KRISHNA BHAVANAM, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMPALAM PO, MAVELIKKARA, (RETIRED CONTINGENT WORKER, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY). 2. SUKUMARAN V., POROOR KIZHAKKATHIL, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMPALAM PO, MAVELIKKARA, (RETIRED CONTINGENT WORKER, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY). 3. CHELLAMMA K., KALLUMPURATH HOUSE, WEST FORT, MAVELIKKARA PO, (WIDOW OF CHELLAPPAN, RETIRED CONTINGENT WORKER MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY). BY ADVS. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR, SMT.T.SUDHA DEVI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAVELIKKARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL,SC,MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16672/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.88/2008/LSGD DTD. 19/03/2008. P2: COPY OF THE TABULATION PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING ARREARS OF PENSION REVISION BENEFITS DUE THE CONTINGENT WORKERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16672 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 7th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners 1 and 2 retired from the service of Mavelikkara Municipality as contingent workers respectively on 30.09.2003 and 31.07.2004. The third petitioner is the widow of one Chellappan who retired from its service on 31.8.1993. While working as contingent worker he died on 5.3.2003. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to pay the balance amounts in terms of Ext.P2 towards arrears on account of Ext.P1 pension revision orders. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in this writ petition. In view of the statement in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit consideration of the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits is uncalled for. Going by paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit the respondent only requires six months' time to effect payment of the remaining pensionary benefits to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the age of the petitioners the respondent is not justified in seeking such a long period for effecting payment. In fact, petitioners 1 and 2 are aged 67 years each and the third petitioner is aged 82 years. Taking into WP(C).No.16672/2011 2 account the age of the petitioners I am not inclined to grant six months' time as sought for by the respondent. Considering the fact that there is no dispute with respect to the entitlement of the petitioners to get the benefits in terms of Ext.P2 on account of pay revision I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent to grant the balance amount payable to the petitioners in terms of Ext.P2 as a result of Ext.P1 pay revision expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS