C.M.Yohannan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8507 Ker

               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

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

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

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


                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