Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAZEER, MANAGER GRADE IV versus KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NAZEER, MANAGER GRADE IV v. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 11133 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 6743 (30 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11133 of 2007(A)

1. NAZEER, MANAGER GRADE IV,
... Petitioner

2. XAVIER THOMAS, ASSISTANT MANAGER,

3. S.MOHAN DAS, MANAGER GRADE III,

4. K.MOHANDAS, SENIOR MANAGER (HIGHER

5. C.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, CHIEF MANAGER,

6. V.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR MANAGER,

Vs

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

2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :30/03/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 11133 OF 2007

Dated this the 30th March, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioners six in number are the Officers working in the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., which is a state owned company. The first petitioner is the General Secretary of the Officers Association and the second petitioner is the Secretary of the Employees Association of the second respondent. It is pointed out that in the absence of a pension scheme, the officers as also the employees, on retirement from the service of the respondent, are in financial difficulties and they find it difficult to pull on their retired life. The petitioners have brought to the notice of the respondents, the necessity to introduce a pension scheme for the officers and the employees of the respondent. Ext.P8 is the detailed representation filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 before the Chairman of the second respondent in order to redress their grievance in relation to the claim for pensionary benefits.

2. I have heard the standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and the Govt. Pleader for the first respondent.

3. It is the duty of the second respondent to consider Ext.P8 and to take appropriate decision without WPC 11133/2007 2 delay. In order to see that the second respondent takes up for consideration and decision the request made in Ext.P8, a time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment is hereby fixed. The order passed on Ext.P8 shall be communicated to the petitioners immediately. 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.