IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37936 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.J.JOHN, KATTUMANGHATTU, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682312. BY ADVS. MR.M.C.CHERIAN MR.M.A.THOMAS KUTTY SMT.SARAMMA CHERIAN SMT.ASHA CHERIAN MR.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SIDCO),REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B.NO.50,HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 2. THE MANAGING DIRETOR, SIDCO, P.B.NO.50, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.R.T.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.37936/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 8.3.99 IN OP. NO.11622/90 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 15.3.01 OF IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 26.3.01 OF PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 18.8.01 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 14.1.04 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 27.9.07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION /APPEAL DT. 8.2.08 OF THE PETITIONER. P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 10.3.08 IN WPC. NO.7929/08 OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER/ LETTER DT. 4.10.08 RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.37936/2008-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to pass orders on the merits on Ext.P7 appeal inspite of the directions in Ext.P8 judgment of this Court. 2. By Ext.P9, the reply given is to the effect that the Board has resolved to await the verdict of this Court in W.P.(C).No.19826/2008 filed by Shri.Dharmaraj, Manager (T). Thus it cannot be said that this is a decision on the merits of the matter. But, certainly, the petitioner is not benefited by the same order also. 3. The challenge raised in Ext.P7 is against Ext.P6, whereby the Managing Director after sanctioning for the payment of Rs.1,85,370/- as gratuity to the petitioner, ordered to recover an amount of Rs.48,496/- towards the subsistence allowance paid in excess of the leave salary payable to him during his suspension period i.e., 21/08/2001 to 23/06/2002 as per rules. 4. The petitioner retired from service on 31/05/2005. On an earlier occasion, he approached this Court by filing O.P.No.11622/1990, wherein this Court directed the first respondent to give due rank to the W.P.(C) No.37936/2008 -:2:- petitioner in the seniority list as Foreman from 03/11/1978 and to give all consequential benefits. There was a further direction to implement the judgment within a time limit. Consequential orders have been passed as per Ext.P2 by which the seniority position has been revised in respect of the petitioner. In the operative portion it has been further stated that the petitioner is eligible for all consequential benefits based on the seniority revision. It is the contention of the petitioner that so far the monetary benefits arising from the above proceedings have not been disbursed to him. Later by Ext.P3, this aspect was pointed by him to the Managing Director. Thereafter, it appears that he was suspended from service for various omissions and commissions and the consequent disciplinary action was finalised by Ext.P5 order, wherein he was awarded with a punishment of baring one increment with cumulative effect. It was also ordered that the period of suspension from 21/08/2001 to 23/06/2002 will be treated as leave without allowance. Subsequently, the impugned order Ext.P6 has been passed directing recovery of portion of subsistence allowance paid to him. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the respondents. On a reference to the detailed facts stated in W.P.(C). No.19826/2008, it is seen that the same has nothing to do with the subject matter of the writ petition herein or against the claim raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6. There, the petitioner Sri.P.Dharmaraj, Manager (T), W.P.(C) No.37936/2008 -:3:- has challenged Ext.P10 order by which his claim for regularisation has been rejected. Obviously, the said issue has nothing to do with the matter concerning the petitioner or the order against which the present writ petition has been filed. Therefore, the decision taken by the Board of Directors reflected in Ext.P9 cannot stand. There was no impediment for the Board of Directors to consider Ext.P7 on the merits of the matter and the pendency of W.P.(C).No.19826/2008 should not have been taken as a reason to postpone the matter till the disposal of the said writ petition. Hence, Ext.P9 is quashed. 6. Therefore, there will be a direction to the Board of Directors to hear and dispose of the Ext.P7 appeal on merits within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that apart from the challenge against Ext.P6, the petitioner has raised various monetary claims in the appeal, which has no connection with the main aspect to be decided. The learned counsel for the petitioner explained that so far Exts.P1 and P2 have not been implemented by granting the benefits legally due. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that inspite of Ext.P2 order, the consequential monetary benefits due to the petitioner have not been disbursed so far. In the light of the findings in the judgment rendered by this Court as Ext.P1 as early as on 08/03/1999 and the consequential orders passed as per Ext.P2, it is the sole responsibility of the W.P.(C) No.37936/2008 -:4:- person concerned, namely, the Managing Director to see that the monetary benefits due to the petitioner are released within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms