SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DR.GEORGE K DANIEL – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6934 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SHRI.PRESAD V.G.
For the Respondents: SRI.VENUGOPAL V, GP

The Court emphasized the necessity for timely administrative action in considering employee representations related to service benefits and rights.

Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks relief regarding denial of service and benefits due to a period of suspension from 2008 to 2009. The Court considered the petitioner's request for appropriate actions by the respondents regarding pending benefits. The Court allowed the petition to direct the first respondent to address the petitioner's representation expeditiously. Key issues included statutory compliance and timely decision-making regarding employee rights.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for employee benefits. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's counsel requests consideration of representation. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P-2 and P-3 to the extent they deny full service and monetary benefits for the period of suspension from 27.02.2008 to 12.03.2009;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to treat the period of suspension from 27.02.2008 to 12.03.2009 as duty for all purposes, including pay, increments and pensionary benefits;

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant and disburse full salary and allowances for the illegal suspension period of the Petitioner with all consequential benefits;

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents to grant the increment due in July 2008 and to refix the Petitioner’s pay accordingly, with consequential revision benefits arising out of the 2009 and 2014 Pay Revisions (v) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents to revise and disburse the Petitioner’s pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits based on such refixation, together with arrears;

(vi) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ appropriate order or direction commanding the 1st Respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P-5 with notice to the Petitioner in a time bound manner.

(vii) to dispense with filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition. (viii) pass such other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent consider Ext.P5 presentation.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

After hearing both sides, I think that prayer can be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P5 representation, and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top