IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8440 of 2007(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LUXY P.J., W/O. T.O.ALEXANDER, THOMMASSERY HOUSE, 12/340, SUJATHA ROAD, PANDIKKUDY, KOCHI - 2. BY ADV. MR.RAJU ABRAHAM PULPARA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI - 682 011. 2. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., CHERANELLUR. 3. THE MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., MATTANCHERRY. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM-18. ADV. MR.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 MR.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD FOR R2 & 3 MR.M.L.SAJEEV. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8440 of 2007(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: DEATH CERTIFICATE DTD.21.11.2005 OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. EXT.P2: NOTICE DATED 24.11.2005 OF R4. EXT.P3: HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DTD. 7.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, COCHI. EXT.P4: LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30.9.2006. EXT.P5(a): APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.6(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 TO R1 DTD.18.12.2006. EXT.P5(b): APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.6(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 TO R2 DTD.18.12.2006. EXT.P5(c): APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC.6(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 TO R3 DTD.18.12.2006. EXT.P6: REPLY TO EXT.P5(a) ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF R1 DTD. 16.1.2007. EXT.P7: REPLY TO EXT.P5(b) OF R2 DTD. 16.1.2007. EXT.P8: REPLY TO EXT.P5(c) OF R3 DTD. 18.1.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): LETTER NO.CHN/310/95, CHN/326/95, CHN/301/94, CHN283/92 DTD. 24.11.2005 OF SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) KSFE, KACHERIPADY. EXT.R1(B): LETTER DATED 15.4.2005 OF EKM DISTRICT CO-OP BANK LTD, ERNAKULAM. EXT.R1(C): LETTER DATED 23.8.2006 OF PALLURUTHY MANDALAM SERVICE CO- OP BANK LTD. ........ // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.8440 of 2007 - D --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the callous inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in disbursing the retirement benefits due to the deceased father of the petitioner in respect of his service rendered in the Corporation, prior to his death occurred on 9.11.2005. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased father left the petitioner, her mother and sister as the sole legal heirs of the deceased as borne by Ext.P3. Though the others have not been brought into party array, it is the version of the petitioner that among the legal heirs, they have entered into some arrangement enabling the petitioner to receive the entire terminal benefits payable by the Corporation and that despite the requests in this regard, necessary steps have not been taken by the Corporation so as to make the legal heirs entitled to have the terminal benefits disbursed; presumably on the basis of some instructions/notices issued by the respondents 2 to 4 and some other financial institutions. W.P.(C).No.8440 of 2007 - D 2 2. The deceased father of the petitioner had stood as a surety to four loan transactions to the KSFE Ltd and according to the petitioner, much amounts have already been recovered from the salary of the deceased father as evident from Ext.P6. It is submitted by the petitioner that the loan transactions were of the year 1991-92 that the debt has already become “time-barred” and further that, time barred debt cannot be recovered invoking the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as held by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. V.R.Kalliyanikutty (1999 (2) KLT 146). No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2 to 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 that they have filed a statement today (which is yet to come up before the Bench) wherein it is stated that the consent given by the deceased employee was only to recover amounts from the “salary” and that no consent was given with regard to recovery of any amounts from the “terminal benefits”. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that there is absolutely no fault or lapses on their side, in so far W.P.(C).No.8440 of 2007 - D 3 as the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner's father could not be disbursed because of the adverse proceedings being pursued by the respondents 2 to 4 and also by some other financial institutions as borne by Exts.R1(c) and R1(d). It is also asserted in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the 1st respondent Corporation has already addressed the other respondents (KSFE Ltd) to provide a copy of the consent letter, if any given by the deceased father of the petitioner, pointing out that unless and until such consent is produced, no amounts could be recovered from the 'terminal benefits'. It is further stated that no such consent letter had been produced by the respondents 2 to 4 till date. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 that no such consent letter was given by the deceased father of the petitioner for effecting recovery from the “terminal benefits”, there is no point in keeping the retirement benefits at the hands of the Corporation, without being disbursed to the eligible legal heirs. More so, when during the life time of the deceased employee much recovery had been W.P.(C).No.8440 of 2007 - D 4 effected from his salary as per Ext.P6, at the instance of the KSFE Ltd. It is also a fact revealed from Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings issued by the KSFE Ltd that no amounts had been recovered from the principal debtor. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the KSFE Ltd has initiated proceedings against some of the co-sureties and that there is absolutely no rationale in causing the retirement benefits of the deceased father of the petitioner un-disbursed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby declared that the retirement benefits due to the deceased father of the petitioner are no more liable to be kept in cold storage and that the same is liable to be released to the legal heirs of the deceased immediately. Respondents 2 to 4 are at liberty to proceed against the principal debtor or the other sureties in respect of the loan transactions, in accordance with law. The 1st respondent-Corporation is directed to release the entire retirement benefits payable to the deceased father of the petitioner to the legal heirs or to such person on production of proper certificate to be issued from the competent court of law or W.P.(C).No.8440 of 2007 - D 5 other Competent Authority enabling them/the petitioner to obtain the retirement benefits which shall be done within one month from the date of production of such certificate. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. bkn/-