Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
A. ALAVIKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for enforcement of pension rights. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner advised to submit representation. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directs consideration of representation. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
“(I) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation in the light of Ext.P8 judgment and to sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits to the petitioner forthwith.
(ii) such other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to allow in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. When this writ petition is came up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to consider Ext.P5 representation by the 1st respondent.
3. The learned Government Pleader takes me through paragraph No.11 of Ext.P8 judgment and submitted that the 2nd respondent Board has to take a decision. If that is the case, the petitioner can be allowed to submit a representation before the 2nd respondent. There can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the same, in the light of Ext.P8 judg
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
