IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 17780 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
SAJUMON.M.M.,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.Y.MATHEW,
MANNA DALE, PALLIMUKKU, KUNDARA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 501.
BY ADVS.
BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
K.S.ARCHANA
MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION,
JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014.
3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
THEVALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 009.
4 ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
KUNDARA, KUNDARA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 501.
5 HEADMASTER, P.K.J.M. UP SCHOOL,
MULAVANA, KUNDARA VIA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 501.
SMT SABEENA P ISMAIL, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17780 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the delay and inaction on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and disbursing the DCRG due to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he had been working as Headmaster in PKJM UP School, Mulavana from 2.6.1986 and had attained superannuation on 31.05.2021 and immediately thereafter, he had sought for disbursal of the terminal benefits due to him. However, relying on certain audit objections, the same has not been disbursed. The petitioner contends that though various representations have been submitted, the same was not heeded to. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner had preferred Exhibit P5 representation before respondents 2 to 4, which is stated to be pending.
2. Sri. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the limited prayer sought for at this stage is for issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P5 representation and to take a decision in an expeditious manner.
3. I have heard Smt. Sabeena P. Ismail, the learned Government Pleader as well. In view of the nature of order that I propose to pass, notice to the party respondent is dispensed with. WP(C) NO. 17780 OF 2022 3
4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:
a) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative and the 5th respondent.
b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.
This writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE avs WP(C) NO. 17780 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17780/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 26.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE NOON FEEDING SUPERVISOR ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 25.02.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.03.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4.