IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 26567 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
C.M.YOHANNAN, (RETD. DRIVER FROM HANTEX),
CHUNGATH HOUSE, JOSEPH LANE, KARAKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 564.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.MOHANDAS
SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, (HANTEX FOR SHORT), P.B.NO.
64, OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.
BY ADV SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
SMT.RESMI THOMAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 26567/17
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from the services of the Kerala State Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd ('HANTEX' for short) on 30.11.2010; and complains that he has not been paid his retirement benefits, though such have been made available to various others who retired after him.
2. The afore assertion of the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel - Sri.S.Mohandas, were answered by Sri.N.Reghuraj - learned Standing Counsel for 'HANTEX', saying that orders impugned in this case are irreproachable because the petitioner is not eligible to any of the claims made by him, particularly for the reason that he retired prior to the cut off date mentioned in Ext.P1, namely 1.02.2011. He explained that the persons to whom benefits have been given, as claimed by the petitioner, were all retired after the cut-off date and therefore, they stand on a different plane altogether. He argued that, therefore, the petitioner cannot rely upon the benefits granted to others, to claim something which he is not eligible to, as per WPC 26567/17 3 Ext.P1.
3. In reply, Sri.S.Mohandas, submitted that Ext.P1 Pay Revision did not come into effect in the year 2011, but in 2004; however, that owing to the financial crisis faced by 'HANTEX', its implementation was deferred until 1.02.2011. He submitted that, therefore, the 'HANTEX' cannot now rely upon technicalities and deny his client eligible benefits.
4. When I evaluate the afore submissions, and in particular the impugned order issued by the 'HANTEX', it is evident that their stand is very simple; namely, that the monetary benefits under Ext.P1 Pay Revision will apply only to those persons who retired from service after the cut-off date mentioned therein, namely 1.02.2011. They say that since the petitioner retired prior to that date, he would not get any benefit at all.
5. In this regard, however, this Court must certainly take cognizance of the specific assertion of the petitioner that similarly placed persons have been granted benefits under Ext.P1, though I am also aware that the argument of 'HANTEX' against this is that such persons retired much after 2011. However, since this Court WPC 26567/17 4 cannot assess the factual disputation between the parties, especially with respect to the case of allegedly similarly placed persons and because Sri.N.Reghuraj concedes that such persons were given benefits based on the judgment of this Court delivered in WP(C)No.3824/2019, I deem it appropriate that the petitioner's claim also be directed to be reconsidered by 'HANTEX', adverting to his afore contentions.
6. When I say as afore, I must also clarify that this Court had not, in the judgment in WP(C)No.3824/2019, issued any affirmative declarations, but had only ordered 'HANTEX' to consider the case of the petitioners therein, which led to an order in their favour. The question whether they are similarly situated as the petitioner herein certainly will have to guide 'HANTEX' in deciding upon the relief to be granted to him, pursuant to the directions I propose herein.
Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and set aside Exts.P5 and P7; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the 'HANTEX' to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, adverting to his contentions above, as also the order issued in the WPC 26567/17 5 case of the persons he is citing - namely that bearing No.AS4/225/HANTEX/2019 dated 09.10.2019 - and after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
At this time, the learned counsel for the petitioner intervened to say that since his client is not asking for arrears of any monetary benefit prior to the cut-off date in Ext.P1, but only the future ones, the competent Authority of the 'HANTEX' cannot have any objection in conceding to the same.
Of course, this is an aspect that the 'HANTEX' must consider, while the afore exercise is completed and must answer in the resultant order.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 26567/17
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26567/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.41/2016/ID
DATED 29.2.2016
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS FROM GO(P)
NO. 145/2006/FIN DATED 25.3.2006
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
14.7.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ELIGIBILITY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.9.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 26.9.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO HON'BLE MINISTER (INDU) EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.11.2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT