Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K.CHAKRAPANI versus THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K.CHAKRAPANI v. THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE - WP(C) No. 20477 of 2006(K) [2007] RD-KL 8313 (23 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20477 of 2006(K)

1. P.K.CHAKRAPANI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent

2. THE HEADMISTRESS,

3. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN,

4. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :23/05/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 20477 OF 2006

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner retired from service while he was working as a Full-time Menial in Government High School, South Vazhakulam. Petitioner admits that he stood as surety for the loan availed by the 3rd respondent, who was working as High School Assistant in the same school.

2. As per Ext.P1 order, petitioner was found entitled to get a sum of Rs. 75,025 as gratuity. However, the 1st respondent Society, who had sanctioned the loan in favour of respondent No.3, issued Ext.P2 communication to the Headmistress of the school informing that a sum of Rs.54,975/- is liable to be recovered from the petitioner towards the loan account of respondent No.3. Petitioner seeks to get Ext.P2 quashed.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that the amount if any payable by respondent No.3 towards the loan account has to be recovered from respondent No.3 himself, who is a High School Assistant whereas the petitioner is only a Full-time Menial. He has retired from service too. WPC NO.20477/06 Page numbers

4. Learned Government Pleader points out that respondent No.3 has also retired from service on March 31, 2007. His retiral benefits have not yet been disbursed to him till date.

5. Though notice has been served on respondent No.1 and 3 they have not entered appearance. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason why respondent No.1 shall not proceed against the retiral benefits of respondent No.3. It will be open to respondent No.1 to recover the dues payable by respondent No.3 from his retiral benefits. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps to ensure that the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner is disbursed to him as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents 4 & 5 shall also ensure that the retiral benefits of the petitioner are also disbursed to him within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.20477/06 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00 WPC NO.20477/06 Page numbers

JUDGMENT

1ST MARCH, 2007


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.