P.K.Ramachandran v. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/13RD BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 2478 of 2010 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, AGED 73 YEARS, RETD.SECURITY GUARD FOREST INDUSTRIES (TRAVANCORE) LTD.

PICHAMPALLIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR-VIA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.N.SHAMSUL HUDA RESPONDENTS:

------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT.OF INDUSTRIES GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. FOREST INDUSTRIES (TRAVANCORE) LTD., THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 2478 of 2010 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.FIT/6/833 DATED 28.10.94 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER (P&A) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.FIT/PER/11/992000/1556 DATED 7.9.1999 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER (P&A) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.3.1995 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT P5 :

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 2478 of 2010 (H) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner seeks disbursement of pension from the 2nd respondent. None appears for the petitioner when the case was called for hearing.

2.

The petitioner, admittedly, was an employee of the 2nd respondent, though the period in which he was continued in employment is disputed. However, the same may not be relevant for consideration since as of now, the question is whether the petitioner had any right to claim pension from the 2nd respondent.

3.

The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been specifically stated that there is no scheme for payment of pension to its employees. The petitioner, on his retirement, was paid Employees Provident Fund under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as also gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

W.P.(C) No. 2478/2010 -24.

In the circumstance of there being no pension scheme applicable to the 2nd respondent, the writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj