IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2055 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15713/2007 Dated 22/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ P.P.JOSE, BRANCH MANAGER(RETD).LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, PALAKATTU HOUSE, THIRUVAMKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVEN BHIMA MARG. POST BOX NO.19953,MUMBAI-400 021 REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BHIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, LIFEL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ANNA SALAI,CHENNAI-600002. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, JEEVAN PRAKASH, M.G.ROAD, POST BOX NO.1133,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN. 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ARCOT ROAD, VELLORE. ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2055 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Appellant is the petitioner. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in the appeal we do not think that we should refer extensively to the facts. The issue raised in the writ petition pertains to the inaction and refusal on the part of the respondents in the matter of disbursement of the pay and allowances and other consequential benefits due to the petitioner. One of the prayers at the time of the arguments was to dispose of Ext.P21 revision pending before the Chairman of the Corporation. The learned single Judge declined the same holding that this court does not have the jurisdiction since the cause of action has arisen under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. When the appeal was argued before us, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the LIC of India to ascertain whether Ext.P21 revision petition had already been received and whether any action has been taken by the Chairman in the matter. W.A.No.2055 of 2008 . -:2:- Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that the matter is engaging attention of the Chairman and that the revision will be disposed of within a period of four weeks from today. In that view of the matter, this court need not go into the question of jurisdiction. That question is left open. The writ appeal is disposed of recording the submission that Ext.P21 revision will be disposed of within four weeks from today. Needless also to say that we have not considered the appeals on merits. All the questions raised are left open. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------- W.A.No.2055 of 2008 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 25th February, 2009