Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
MERCY JOHN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petitioner’s retirement and benefits claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on the entitlement to gratuity despite pending charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court’s findings on law regarding gratuity disbursement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. assessment of differing case precedents and applicability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. the final order to disburse gratuity. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the service of the 3rd respondent Society as its Secretary on 31.05.2023. Earlier, he was promoted to the said post on 01.08.2019. Prior to his promotion as above, one Sri C.P. Najeeb was functioning as the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Society. Sri C.P. Najeeb was to retire on 01.08.2019. By Ext.P1, the Managing Committee of the Society, on 24.07.2019, took a decision to extend all retirement benefits to Sri C.P. Najeeb. On the basis of the decision at Ext.P1, after the petitioner had taken charge as Secretary, the retirement benefits were extended to Sri C.P. Najeeb. Later, on 30.05.2023 – one day earlier to the petitioner’s retirement – a charge memo at Ext.P2 was served on the petitioner, essentially alleging that on account of disbursement of retirement bene
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
