IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 23064 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.C.ALEYAMMA, OTTAPLACKAL HOUSE, NEAR JERUSALEM ST.MARY CHURCH, PUTHENCHANDA P.O., VAKATHANAM (RETIRED JPHN CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY). BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, PIN - 686 101 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.23064 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 6th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. She was at that point of time serving as Junior Public Health Nurse in the Changanachery Municipality. By Ext.P1 order dated 28.4.2008, the Director of Urban Affairs sanctioned to the petitioner various terminal benefits aggregating to the sum of Rs.8,11,895/-. By Ext.P1, the Director of Urban Affairs directed the Changanachery Municipality to pay the said amount to the petitioner and to adjust it towards the amounts payable by the Municipality to the Central Pension Fund. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that even after the expiry of merely 5 months from the date on which Ext.P5 order was passed, the terminal benefits sanctioned thereunder have not been disbursed. The second respondent Municipality has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that large amounts are due to it from the Government and W.P.(C)23064/2008 2 that unless the Government disburses the amounts in time, it will not be in a position to discharge its obligations in the matter of payment of pensionary benefits to former employees. 2. I have heard Sri.Surin George Ipe, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Siby Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Municipality. Ext.P1 directs the Municipality to pay the terminal benefits sanctioned to the petitioner and to adjust it towards the amounts payable by it to the Central Pension Fund. The direction issued by the first respondent in Ext.P1 is binding on the second respondent. The second respondent admits that for the past several years, it has not been remitting its share of contribution to the Central Pension Fund. Therefore the Municipality cannot plead non- availability of funds as the reason for non-payment of terminal benefits sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext.P1. As held by the Apex Court, pension and gratuity are no longer bounties and the petitioner has a right to receive the terminal benefits sanctioned to her as per Ext.P1. Except non-availability of funds, no other reason is put forward to W.P.(C)23064/2008 3 withhold payment of terminal benefits sanctioned as per Ext.P1. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the stand taken by the second respondent that its financial position does not permit it to disburse the terminal benefits sanctioned to the petitioner at present. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the second respondent is directed to pay the terminal benefits sanctioned to the petitioner in Ext.P1 in two equal monthly instalments. The first instalment of Rs.4 lakhs shall be disbursed to the petitioner within one month from today and the balance amount sanctioned as per Ext.P1 shall be disbursed within one month thereafter. It is clarified that if payment as directed above is not made within the time stipulated above, the petitioner will be entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum on the defaulted amount from 1.5.2008 onwards till the date of payment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/