High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 KL CK 0201

Dr. M.D. Joy vs State of Kerala, The Director of Health Services and The District Medical Officer (Health)

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 21749 of 2010 (P)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 270 words

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner retired as Civil Surgeon on 30.4.2007. His pension benefits were settled on 25.11.2008. It is complaining of delay and claiming interest he has filed this writ petition. His claim was already considered by the first Respondent and rejected by Ext.P2. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. Paragraph 3 of Ext.P2 order reads as under.

The case has been examined in detail and found that Dr. M.D. Joy retired from service on 30.4.2007 and his pensionary benefits were settled on 25.11.2008. As per existing norms the application for pensionary claims has to be submitted 1 year prior to the date of retirement. But the doctor submitted the application on 19.12.2006 and the District Medical Officer(Health) Thrissur forwarded the same on 22.1.2007. The Director of Health Services forwarded the pension proposal to the Accountant General on 22.2.2007. The report of admissible pension claims of the Accountant General dated 22.8.2008 was received by the Director of Health Services on 6.9.2008. And Director of Health Services issued sanction order for all the pensionary claims and Non Liability Certificates in respect of Dr. M.D. Joy on 13.10.2008. From the above calendar of action it is crystal clear that no willful delay had occurred on the part of the Respondents in sanctioning pensionary benefits to the Petitioner. Whatever the delay occurred in this case was due to the delayed submission of the application for pensionary claims by the Petitioner himself.

2.

From the above, it is obvious that there has not been any culpable delay on the part of the Respondents justifying the claim.

3.

Writ Petition is dismissed.