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) 21598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
A. ALAVIKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10646 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
For the Respondents: SRI. V. VENUGOPAL

The court affirms the procedural rights of the petitioner to seek consideration of his pensionary benefits through representation.

Headnote:{'statute_analysis': 'The petition seeks to enforce rights related to pensionary benefits as per provisions of Ext.P8 judgment.', 'facts_of_case': 'The petitioner, A. Alavik utty, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent State to consider his representation for pensionary benefits.', 'findings_of_court': 'The court held that the petitioner should submit a representation before the Kerala State Electricity Board, which must be considered in light of Ext.P8 judgment.', 'issues': 'The main issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to have his representation regarding pensionary benefits considered.', 'ratio_decidendi': 'The court emphasized the importance of the representation process, indicating the petitioner has the right to submit grievances to the 2nd respondent.', 'result': 'The writ petition is disposed of with directions for consideration of the petitioner’s representation within specific timelines.'}

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 judgment.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

1) The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating the grievance raised in this writ petition before the 2nd respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

2) Once such a representation is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same, in the light of Ext.P8 judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation.

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