Kerala High Court
K.Pocker vs The Kerala State Financial ... on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.2604 OF 2011(A)
PETITIONER:
K.POCKER, S/O KUNHIKUTTY ALI HAJI,
SENIOR MANAGER (HIGHER GRADE (RETIRED),,
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.,,
NOW RESIDING AT KALLANGODAN HOUSE,
KALPETTA,, WYNAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES
LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,,
REGISTERED OFFICE "BHADRATHA", MUSEUM ROAD,,
THRISSUR - 680 020.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,,
REGISTERED OFFICE "BHADRATHA", MUSEUM ROAD,,
THRISSUR - 680 020.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 2604/11
2
JUDGMENT
Sri.P.B.Krishnan - learned counsel for the
petitioner, vehemently argued the proposition
that Ext.P3 order issued by the Kerala State
Financial Enterprises Ltd (KSFE for short) is
in error, from the touchstone of the directions
in paragraph 22 of Ext.P1 judgment. He
submitted that even though, in the said
judgment, it was made clear that though the
petitioner would not be entitled to the wages
of the Regional Manager from the date on which
his junior was promoted to such post, his
retiral benefits must be recalculated
reflecting the higher pay which he would have
been entitled to, had he been promoted to the
said post.
2. Sri.P.B.Krishnan contended that in
Ext.P3, however, what has been done is that his
client has been given the benefit of a grade
promotion - which is stated to have the same
WPC 2604/11
scale of pay of the Regional Manager - with
effect from 04.01.2003, even when it is
unequivocally admitted that his junior,
Sri.M.N.Ravikumaran, had been promoted to the
post of Regional Manager on 26.02.2001. He thus
prays that Ext.P3 be set aside and the KSFE be
directed to recalculate the retirement benefit
of his client, construing that he was entitled
to the benefit of a higher scale of pay with
effect from 04.01.2003, being the date on which
his junior was promoted as the Regional
Manager.
3. In response, Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar
- learned Standing Counsel for the KSFE,
submitted that Ext.P3 is irreproachable because
Ext.P2 judgment only directed that the
petitioner's retirement benefits be
recalculated, reckoning that he had been
promoted as Regional Manager with effect from
the date on which his junior had been so
granted promotion. He submitted that as is
WPC 2604/11
evident from Ext.P3, the petitioner has been
granted grade promotion on 04.01.2003 which is
equivalent to the post of scale of pay of a
Regional Manager and therefore, that no
additions to his retirement benefits are
entitled to him. He, therefore, prayed that
this Writ Petition be dismissed.
4. I have examined the afore submissions
in the context of the pleadings available on
record.
5. It is indubitable that in Ext.P1
judgment a learned Judge of this Court directed
the respondent to recalculate the retirement
benefits of the petitioner reckoning that he
was entitled to the scale of pay of a Regional
Manager from the date on which his junior was
so promoted. These directions were confirmed by
a learned Division Bench of this Court in
Ext.P2. Obviously, therefore, the respondents
could not have been done anything contrary to
the afore directions.
WPC 2604/11
6. However, when one closely examines
Ext.P3, it only records that the petitioner has
been granted a grade promotion in the post of
Senior Manager 'notionally with retrospective
effect from 04.01.2003 to the immediate higher
time of scale which was the same that of a
Regional Manager' (sic). However, it also
records that the immediate junior of the
petitioner Sri.M.N.Ravikumaran had joined duty
on 26.02.2001.
7. I am, therefore, of the view that
Ext.P3 certainly requires to be reconsidered by
the competent Authority of the KSFE since,
prima facie, it does not appear to adhere to
the directions in Ext.P1 judgment implicitly.
I, however, clarify that this is only a prima
facie view and that it will be up to the
competent Authority of the KSFE to reconsider
the matter and take an appropriate decision,
however, strictly in terms of Ext.P1 judgment.
In the afore circumstances, I set aside
WPC 2604/11
Ext.P3, not because I have found against it
affirmatively at this stage, but so as to pave
way for a fresh consideration of the matter by
the competent Authority of the KSFE.
Resultantly, this Writ Petition is
ordered, directing the 2nd respondent-Managing
Director of the KSFE, to reconsider the claims
of the petitioner from the touchstone of the
directions in paragraph 22 of Ext.P2 judgment,
after affording him an opportunity of being
heard - either physically or through video-
conferencing - thus culminating in an
appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 2604/11
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXT P1 DATED 21.10.2008, TRUE COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP(C)NO.34691 OF 2004-E
EXT P2 DATED 25.06.2010, TRUE COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA
NO.2849 OF 2009.
EXT P3 DATED 23.12.2008, TRUE COPY OF
COMMUNICATION REF NO.4847ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS
EXT P4 DATED NIL, TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL
COVER
