IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No. 201 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16101/2004 Dated 31/05/2004 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.E. BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-04, REP. BY CHIEF ENGINEER. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.BOARD, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: PETITIONER IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------- V.V. GOPALAN (RETD.SUB ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, BEEMANDAY, SREESHYLAM, KOORAMKULAM, POST UDINUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== W.A.No.201 of 2005 & C.M.Appln. No.237 of 2005 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. This Writ Appeal is filed with a delay of 181 days in filing the appeal. The writ petitioner approached this Court because of the delay in settling the pensionary benefits. No amount can be withheld from the D.C.R.G. if the liability, if any, is fixed within three years from the date of retirement. The judgment was delivered in 2004. Here, the writ petitioner retired as early as on 31.10.2002. The direction in the judgment is as follows: "The petitioner is aggrieved by the delayed settlement of pensionary benefits. It appears some proceedings were pending against the petitioner as can be seen from Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P3 before the second respondent. Be that as it may, since the petitioner retired as early as on 31.10.2002, it is for the respondents to finalise WA 201/05 -: 2 :- the proceedings without any delay. There will be a direction to the respondents to see that the proceedings against the petitioner are finalised with notice to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will be granted undisputed portion of the D.C.R.G. and also provisional pension. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment." We fully agree with the learned single Judge. We are not aware why the appeal is filed against such judgment spending money of the public sector undertaking. Both the delay petition and the appeal are dismissed. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 18/7