IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6599 of 2009(T) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- JOLLY STANLEY, GRACE VILLA, EZHAKADAVU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY MR.M.V.THAMBAN, ADVOCATE. MR.R.REJI, ADVOCATE. MR.B.BIPIN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHENGANNUR UNIT. 3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (IA), KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MAVELIKKARA K.S.R.T.C. EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., No.1 721, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, MAVELIKKARA P.O., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY MR. JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.6599 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the widow of late Stanley K. Thomas, an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, who retired from service on 31.8.2006 and died on 26.7.2007. The petitioner filed this writ petition alleging that certain amounts allegedly due from the deceased employee to the Mavelikkara K.S.R.T.C Employees Co-operative Society is sought to be recovered from the DCRG due to the petitioner’s late husband. The petitioner, therefore, filed this writ petition seeking a direction to release the DCRG, in so far as the petitioner is hard- pressed for money in respect of the marriage of her daughter. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation also. 3. The contention of the learned Standing counsel for the Corporation is that no amount is sought to be recovered from the DCRG of the deceased husband of the petitioner. But the DCRG has not been paid only because the turn of the petitioner on the W.P.(C)No.6599/09 2 basis of the date of retirement of her late husband in accordance with the scheme framed by a Division Bench of this Court has not yet reached. 4. I am of opinion that since the employee is no more and the petitioner’s daughter is to be married off, it is only appropriate that the DCRG due to the petitioner’s late husband is released out of turn. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to release the DCRG due to the petitioner’s late husband as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that this payment shall not be out of the ten per cent set apart for paying off the retirement benefits in accordance with the priority of the date of retirement, but shall be out of other funds of the Corporation. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)No.6599/09 3