S. MANIKUMAR, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
S. HEMACHANDRAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. Being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 19.03.2014 in complaint No. 885 of 2013, Special Secretary to the Government, General Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed the instant writ petition for the following reliefs:
(ii) Issue such orders to set aside Exhibit P1 order of the Hon’ble Lok Ayukta.
(iii) To declare that the petitioner had not caused any delay in disbursal of DCRG of the first respondent, over and above, time prescribed under the Service Rules entitling the petitioner to pay compensation by way of damages or interest.”
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:
2.2. Petitioner has sub
Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Another vs. N. Asokan
Associated Engineering Co. vs. Govt. of A.P. 1991 (4) SCC 93
Anisminic Ltd. vs. The Foreign Compensation Commissioner
Charan Singh vs. M/s. Birla Textiles and Another
Dr. Uma Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another
Government of Tamil Nadu vs. M. Deivasigamani
Gorakhpur University vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra
Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi vs. V.B. Raju
Harpal Singh vs. State of Punjab
H. Gangahanume Gowda vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Limited
Mafatlal Industries vs. Union of India
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (KGST)
N. Parthasararhy vs. Controller of Capital Issues
P. Nagarathna Pandian vs. The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
R. Kapur vs. Director of Inspector (Painting and Publication) Income Tax and Another
R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das vs. Settlement Commission (IT & WT)
Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Vikram Cement
R. Lakshmikanthan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Raza Textiles Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur
Shri M.L. Sethi vs. Shri R.P. Kapur
Some Prakash vs. Union of India
S.K. Dua vs. State of Haryana and Another
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers
State of U.P. and Others vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh
State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair
Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
State of Kerala and Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nayyar
State of Kerala vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair
Union of India vs. Tarachand Gupta and Brothers
Union of India vs. Tarachand Gupta and Bros
Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Union of India vs. M.S. Abdulla
Payment of pension is no act of grace or bounty on part of anyone. That is a right earned by Government servant, in recognition of his past services.
Retired employees are entitled to gratuity and interest on delayed payments, with the court having no discretion to deny interest under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the statutory provisions under Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the legal principles related to the issuan....
The right to interest on delayed gratuity payments is statutory and mandatory under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so.
Retiral benefits, including gratuity and pension, constitute vested property rights under Article 300A; delayed payment breaches the right to livelihood under Article 21, and employers must timely se....
Retiral benefits are a right of the employee, and undue delay in their disbursement by the State can lead to the imposition of interest and costs, reflecting the accountability of public authorities ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.