Kerala High Court
Venugopal.K.R vs State Of Kerala on 23 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 28680 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
VENUGOPAL K.R.,
AGED 58 YEARS
'AISWARYA', TC 50/469-1, KALADY, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002, (NOW RESIDING AT
AMBALATHINGAL, RAJAKUMARY SOUTH, IDUKKI-685 619),
MANAGER GR.III (RTD), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL
ENTERPRISES LIMITED, RAJAKUMARY BRANCH,
IDUKKI-685 619.
By SRI.MANU GOVIND
AYSHA JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,
BHADRATHA, MUSEUM ROAD, THRISSUR-680 020.
3 SMT.K.J.SREEDEVI,
'AISWARYA', TC 50/469-1, MANACAUD VILLAGE,
KALADY, KRAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.
BY ADVS.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.VINAYA
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
POOJA MENON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28680 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks that 2 nd respondent - Kerala State Financial
Enterprises Limited ('KSFE' for short) be directed to pay him
pensionary benefits sanctioned through Ext.P1, within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court; explaining that the earlier impediment in its
way, namely Ext.P2 order of the Family Court is no longer relevant,
since the liability under it has already been paid off by him. He further
submits that the alleged amounts due from him to a Society, as
reflected in Ext.P5 proceedings can also be adjusted; but that this
ought not to be used by the KSFE as an excuse to deny even the
balance amounts.
2. Smt.Aysha John - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that, as evident from Ext.P7 produced by her client, the order of
attachment issued by the Family Court through Ext.P2 has been fully
honoured and it has been recorded therein that same has been lifted.
She added that the liability in Ext.P5 is not admitted by her client; but
that if he is given an opportunity of being heard by the KSFE, he will
be able to convince them of the same.
3. Smt.Pooja Menon - learned counsel appearing for the KSFE,
submitted that her client had not withheld the pension of the
petitioner, but that they are incapacitated from honouring it on
account of Ext.P2 order of the Family Court and Ext.P5 requisition
made by a Society, namely the KSFE Staff Co-operative Society Ltd.
('Society' for short). She submitted that, therefore, she leaves it to this
Court to issue appropriate orders on these. She then pointed out that a
liability is found by the KSFE against the petitioner, to a sum of
Rs.12,64,704/-; but conceded, to a pointed question from this Court
that neither has any enquiry been completed before finalizing it, nor
can any such be now initiated against the petitioner on account of the
absence of any enabling provision in the applicable Service Rules and
Regulations.
4. I have considered the afore rival submissions and have also
gone through the documents on record.
5. As rightly argued by Smt.Pooja Menon, the KSFE cannot be
asked to pay pensionary benefits to the petitioner if Exts.P2 and P5
order and letter respectively are pending.
However, Ext.P7 now produced by the petitioner would, prima
facie, indicate that the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has lifted
the attachment as ordered in Ext.P2; though there is no information
with respect to the amounts claimed by the Society through Ext.P5. I
am, therefore, of the firm view that this writ petition deserves to be
disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The competent Authority of the 2 nd respondent is directed to
hear the petitioner and take a decision with respect to the pensionary
benefits, adverting to Ext.P7 order of the Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram, within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(b) As regards Ext.P5, the competent Authority of the 2nd
respondent will hear the petitioner, as also the authorized official of
the Society, and finalize the amounts that are due from the former to
the latter, and thus pay the balance pensionary benefits, in terms of
direction (a) above also, to the petitioner. This shall be done not later
than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(c) The pension shall be released to the petitioner without
deducting any amounts alleged to be the liability towards the KSFE, in
view of the fact that no enquiry has been concededly completed against
the petitioner in finalizing the same and that it cannot be now initiated
or completed as per the Service Ruls and Regulations applicable to the
KSFE; but leaving liberty to them to recover it in any manner as they
may deem fit if it is so permissible in law in future.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/23.8
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28680/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER REF.NO.48889 DATED
08.10.2021 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 IN EP
NO.45/2021 IN OP NO.1619 OF 2016 OF
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2021
OF PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2021
OF PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.07.2021
OF THE SECRETARY, KSFE STAFF CO OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD. T-777.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.09.2021
OF THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER ( P & HR)
AND STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
KSFE, THRISSUR.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN EP 45/2021 IN OP
1619/2016 DATED 09.03.2023 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
