Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR. E.J.SARAMMA, PANAECKAL HOUSE versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DR. E.J.SARAMMA, PANAECKAL HOUSE v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 23190 of 2003(I) [2007] RD-KL 13616 (20 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23190 of 2003(I)

1. DR. E.J.SARAMMA, PANAECKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL

3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :20/07/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J


=======================
O.P.No.23190 of 2003
=======================

Dated this the 20th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner superannuated on 31.5.1998 from the Animal Husbandry Department was re-employed for a period of two years from 25.11.1999. Her complaint is that the amounts due to her on account of such re-employment has not been determined in terms of Ext.P7 Government Order which obviously applies because the said Government Order is applied for the purpose of preparing the statement of re-fixed honorarium in respect of the petitioner issued as per Ext.P8. Ext.P7 provides that illustration on the basis of which the workings have to be made to reach at the amount that is payable. The gross salary is to be determined by adding the components (a), (b), (c) and (d) as stated in the said Government order. According to the petitioner, though that formula applies in view of the applicability of Ext.P7 Government order, determination of the last pay drawn by her reflected under Ext.P8 is not in accordance with Ext.P7. The petitioner has no quarrel about the W.P.(C).No.23190/2003 :2: amounts that are to be deducted on account of pension etc. from that last pay for the purpose of determining the amount due to be paid during the period of re-employment. Hence, the only controversy is as to whether the total amount that could be treated as the last pay for the purpose of determining the emoluments during re-employment is in terms of Ext.P7 Government Order. If the respondents concluded that it is not Ext.P7 that applies to the case of the petitioner, notwithstanding the reference made that Government Order in Ext.P8, the decision shall be taken under Rule 100 Part III of Kerala Service Rules, in the light of Rule 12(23) Part I K.S.R to determine the emoluments on re-employment. In the light of what is stated above, a final decision shall be rendered within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If further amounts are found due to the petitioner on such calculation those, amounts shall be released to the petitioner.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

dvs


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.