Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.Parameswaran Namboodiri vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 8 August, 2011

Author: P.N.Ravindran

Bench: P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29030 of 2010(C)


1. P.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF

4. THE KALIKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANU

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :08/08/2011

 O R D E R
                               P.N.Ravindran, J.

                       -------------------------------------------

                       W.P.(C)No.29030 of 2010 C

                       -------------------------------------------

                  Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011


                                  JUDGMENT

The issue raised in the instant writ petition is covered against the petitioner by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nedupuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. K.Rugmini (2011 (3) KLT 134). In that case, the Division Bench of this Court held that where the amount payable under the Group Gratuity Life Assurance Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is only `.3.5 lakhs, the Society is liable to pay only that much amount by way of gratuity to employees like the petitioner. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the amount of gratuity cannot be restricted to `.3.5 lakhs and that he should get an enhanced amount of gratuity. The petitioner has, however, not been able to establish his claim that he was entitled to receive anything in excess of `.3.5 lakhs, which was already paid to him.

I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

(P.N.Ravindran, Judge) tkv