P.P.Rajeev vs Cochin Port Trust
2022 Latest Caselaw 5445 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
         FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 5493 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
           P.P.RAJEEV
           AGED 60 YEARS
           S/O.P.A.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT PARABHAKARA NILIYAM,
           PAZHUPARAMBIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM VILLAGE, PUTHIYAKAVU,
           TRIPUNITHURA-682301.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.ROY MATHEW
            SRI.T.N.MANOJ



RESPONDENT/S:
     1     COCHIN PORT TRUST
           WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009, REPRESENTED BY ITS
           SECRETARY.

     2      THE CHAIRMAN
            COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

     3      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
            COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

     4      TRAFFIC MANAGER
            COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682009.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
            SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
            SRI.BINU MATHEW
            SRI.HARAN THOMAS GEORGE
            SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
            SRI.NOBY THOMAS CYRIAC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5493 OF 2016
                                       2

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to disburse the pension benefits of the petitioner without insisting for relinquishment of his rights/claims with respect to disciplinary actions taken against him and the request for compulsory retirement, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 had filed an

additional statement dated 14.6.2016 by filing a Statement of

Accounts of all terminal payments made to the petitioner as R1(f).

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in

terms of the stand taken by the respondents as per R1(f). Receipt of

the pensionary benefits would not take away the right of the petitioner

in challenging the suspension and any other orders pending in this

matter.

Sd/-

sab                                            AMIT RAWAL

                                                  JUDGE
 WP(C) NO. 5493 OF 2016


                   APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5493/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P1: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 8.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2: THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.