Surendran Nair R vs The Managing Director
2021 Latest Caselaw 3435 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.32593 OF 2011


PETITIONER:

               SURENDRAN NAIR R
               VASUDEVA VILASAM,
               CHERUVAIKKAL, SREEKARIYAM.P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 017.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.POOVAPPALLY M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
               SRI.P.S.SURESH KUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               KERALA STATE AUDIO-VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHICAL CENTRE,
               (C-APT - CENTRE FOR ADVANCE PRINTING TECHNOLOGY)
               VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013.

      2        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
               DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

               R1 BY ADV. K. ANAND -SC
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN SR
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANANDSC C-APT
               R1 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN, SC, C-APT
               R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.RAZIYA , SC, CENTERC FOR ADVANCED
               PRINTING AMP TRA

               SMT. LATHA ANAND - SC, SMT. REKHA C NAIR - SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.32593 OF 2011                   2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he retired from

the services of the 1st respondent - Kerala

State Audio-Visual and Reprographical Centre

(C-APT for short), on 29.01.2005 and alleges

that his service and retiral benefits have not

been yet paid. He says that he is entitled to

an amount of Rs.1,17,288/-, as has been

explained in Paragraph 8 of this Writ

Petition, but that the C-APT refused to accede

to the same, thus constraining him to approach

this Court.

2. Sri.Poovappally M. Ramachandran Nair,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

further submitted that an interim order had

been issued by this Court on 28.06.2017,

directing the 1st respondent to pay the

admitted retiral benefits to his client and

that an amount of Rs.34,301/- has been paid.

He says that the balance amount is still

unpaid and prays that the 1st respondent be

directed to do so at the earliest.

3. In response, Smt.Latha Anand - learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the C-APT,

submitted that as per her clients'

calculation, the amounts payable to the

petitioner is only Rs.34,301/- and that this

has been paid under the interim order of this

Court afore mentioned. She, therefore, prayed

that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

4. In reply, Sri.Poovappally M.

Ramachandran Nair - learned counsel for the

petitioner, submitted that an amount of

Rs.34,301/- has been paid to his client by the

1st respondent without considering his

assertions in Paragraph 8 of this Writ

Petition, wherein the break-up of his claim

has been enumerated. He prayed that,

therefore, the C-APT be directed to pay the

balance amounts to his client at the earliest.

He then submitted that, in any event, the

amount already paid to his client did not

carry interest, which the 1st respondent was

bound to pay in law.

5. When I consider the above submissions,

it is clear that there is a dispute in the

factual realm between the parties, as to the

amounts which is due to the petitioner. While

the C-APT says that the petitioner is entitled

only to an amount of Rs.34,301/-, which has

already been paid to him; the petitioner

claims an amount of Rs. 1,17,288/-, the break-

up of which is available in Paragraph 8 of

this Writ Petition.

6. I am therefore, of the firm view that

the 1st respondent should consider and evaluate

the break-up of the claim of the petitioner,

rather than take a unilateral stand that only

an amount of Rs.34,301/- is to be paid.

Resultantly, this Writ Petition is ordered

with a direction to the competent Authority of

the 1st respondent to immediately hear the

petitioner - either physically or through

video conferencing - and issue an appropriate

order relating to his claims as enumerated in

Paragraph 8 of this Writ petition, as

expeditiously as possible, but not later than

two months from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment.

I make it clear that I have not considered

the petitioner's claim for interest on the

amounts payable to him and that this will also

be kept in mind by the competent Authority of

C-APT, when the afore exercise is completed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

MC/2.2.2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.KS AVRC/07/97 DATED 1.1.1997

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOY OF THE PROCEEDINGS KS AVRC/REPROGRAHIC CENTRE DATED 1.1.1999.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO.KS AVRC/001/99 DATED 29.12.99.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.KSAVRC/2221/2000 (7) DATED 10.10.2000.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER KSAVRC/2221/2000 (7) DATED 16.10.2000.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO.KSAVRC/2221/2000 (7) DATED 29.1.2005.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.37054 OF 2009 (B) DATED 22.12.2009.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.7.20.11.