Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.A.ROCKY, S/O.ANTHONY versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.A.ROCKY, S/O.ANTHONY v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 31734 of 2006(C) [2006] RD-KL 3499 (15 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31734 of 2006(C)

1. C.A.ROCKY, S/O.ANTHONY,
... Petitioner

2. P. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI,

3. M.PATHROSE,

4. C.USHA DEVI,

5. P.C.GEORGEKUTTY,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE FOOD CRAFT INSTITUTE (KERALA)

For Petitioner :SRI.WILSON URMESE

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :15/12/2006

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 31734 OF 2006

Dated this the 15th December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

The petitioners are working as Office Superintendent cum Accountant, Lab Attendant, U.D.Clerk (Higher Grade) and Principal of the third respondent institute. The petitioners submit that they are entitled to continue in service up to the age of 58 years and they apprehend termination of their service on attaining the age of 55 years.

2. It appears that the claim thus made by the petitioners is not founded on any statutory rule or the conditions of service applicable to the petitioners. The grounds raised in the writ petition would show that as far as the employees in other public limited companies are concerned, the retirement age is 58 years, and therefore, the petitioners shall also be treated similarly.

3. The petitioners have filed representations before the first respondent. Ext.P5 is the representation of the fifth petitioner who is the Principal of the third respondent institute. One of the contentions raised in the representation is that unless the petitioners are allowed to continue in service upto the age of 58 years, they will not be able to avail the full benefits under the pension WPC 31734/2006 2 scheme.

4. Heard both sides. The above request of the petitioners is primarily a matter for the first respondent to consider and take appropriate decision. Hence there shall be an order directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 after taking into consideration relevant aspects. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within two months on the fifth petitioner producing a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. The claim for service pension also shall be considered by the first respondent. If supplementary representations are filed by the other petitioners, that all shall be taken into consideration by the first respondent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.