Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.GANGADHARAN UNNI versus THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.GANGADHARAN UNNI v. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER - WP(C) No. 32498 of 2006(R) [2007] RD-KL 9098 (30 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32498 of 2006(R)

1. V.GANGADHARAN UNNI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,

4. THE TEXT BOOK OFFICER,

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

Dated :30/05/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.32498 OF 2006

Dated this the 30th day of May, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner retired from service while he was working as Store Keeper in the District Text Book Depot, Pettah in Thiruvananthapuram. This writ petition was filed by him highlighting the grievance that his retiral benefits had been withheld by the respondents arbitrarily. He has sought for appropriate reliefs in this regard.

2. During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 has issued Ext.P12 proceedings requesting the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to initiate action under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover an amount of Rs.3,37,955/- from the petitioner, which is stated to be the liability fastened on him. Of course, it is mentioned in Ext.P12 that the amounts payable to the petitioner towards his DCRG would come to Rs.1,70,775/-. Presumably the said amount has to be adjusted towards the liability. Therefore, the main prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner for the time being W.P.(C)No.32498 OF 2006 unless and until the question regarding his liability is adjudicated at appropriate level.

3. Learned counsel submits that he will pursue the matter and give his explanation with regard to the alleged liability before the competent authority.

4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the question of liability within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to be heard. It will be open to the petitioner to submit his explanation in the matter. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Till such time, a final decision is taken on the quantum of liability of the petitioner, the recovery proceedings if any initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is closed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


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.