Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.V.THOMAS, MANEPARAMBIL HOUSE versus THE CHAIRMAN, THE LIFE INSURANCE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.V.THOMAS, MANEPARAMBIL HOUSE v. THE CHAIRMAN, THE LIFE INSURANCE - WP(C) No. 18646 of 2005(T) [2006] RD-KL 1539 (8 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18646 of 2005(T)

1. M.V.THOMAS, MANEPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE CHAIRMAN, THE LIFE INSURANCE
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, PENSION CELL,

3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SMT.SANTHAMMA ISSAC

For Respondent :SRI.S.EASWARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :08/11/2006

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18646 OF 2005 T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 8th November, 2006



J U D G M E N T

After retirement from the Army, the petitioner was sponsored through the soldier's cell as well as the Employment Exchange for job opportunity under the respondents. He was offered an appointment. He joined duty in November, 1995 in the establishment of the respondents and retired from service on 31-3-2005. He has not been granted pensionary benefits as he did not have 10 years service under the respondents which is the minimum period prescribed for the grant of pension. The claim made by the petitioner for pension was turned down by the respondents as seen from Exts. P1 and P2 orders.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not sought for any relief directly against Exts. P1 and P2 since he has moved the same authority for a re-consideration of the earlier orders by filing Ext. P4 representation before the Chairman of the Corporation. The contention of the petitioner is that the Corporation had accepted the option made by WPC No. 18646/2006 -2- the petitioner for pension and it may not fit in with the principles of justice to go back from the earlier stand taken by the Corporation.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents maintaining the stand taken by them as per Exts. P1 and P2.

4. It is unnecessary for this Court to consider the contentions taken by the petitioner in the writ petition or those by the respondents in the counter affidavit since the limited relief prayed for by the petitioner is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P4 representation. I feel that the relief thus prayed for can be granted in the facts and circumstances of this case.

5. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext. P4 and pass appropriate orders within three months on the petitioner producing a copy of the judgment. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.