Kerala

StateCommission

A/11/73

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.KALYANIKUTTY - Opp.Party(s)

S.VIJAYAKUMARAN

26 Mar 2011

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. A/11/73
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/06/2010 in Case No. CC/06/257 of District Kollam)
 
1. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
VIKAS BHAVAN
TRIVANDRUM
KERALA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. P.KALYANIKUTTY
RETD.LECTURER,PONNATH,THIRUVILLAMALA
TRICHUR
KERALA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

IA.176/11 & APPEAL 73/11

JUDGMENT DATED 26.3.2011

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

 

1.      The Director of Collegiate Education,

Vikas Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram.                                                                      

2.      The Finance Officer,                                 --  PETITIONERS

0/0 the Collegiate Education,

Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv. 

 

                   Vs.

1.      P.Kalyanikutty,

Retired Lecturer, Ponnath,

Thiruvilwamala.P.O, Trichur.

2.      The Principal,                                            --  RESPONDENTS

S.N.College, Kollam.

 

 

                                                JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

 

                   The petitioner/appellants are the   Collegiate Education  authorities in CC No.257/06 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The appellants are under orders to pay interest at the prevailing rate for the PF funds for the period of delay and also compensation and cost of Rs.5000/-.

                    2. The petition is filed for condoning the delay of 163 days.  In the affidavit   filed by the Finance Officer of the department of Collegiate Education the reason mentioned is that the Government did not sanction the proceedings to file the appeal in time.

                    3. We find that the deponent has not mentioned as to  when he addressed the communication to the Government of which he is a part and whether he has perused the matter.   Just a dare statement that the Government did not issue sanction cannot be treated as a sufficient reason.

                    4. Further, we find that the matter is with respect to the delay to disburse the Provident Fund and arrears of salary of the complainant after retirement as a College teacher.  As such, we find that there is no proper justification for the delay of about 2 years in disbursing the amount.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum also.   In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal as well.   Hence the delay condonation as well as the appeal is dismissed in limine. 

                    The office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

 

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER

 

 

 

 
 
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.