IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 2 of 2008() ------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33122/2007 Dated 12/11/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE PO, PIN-686 002. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- K.N.SARALA (RETIRED SUB REGISTRAR, RAMAPURAM), KOTTITHARA HOUSE, VADAKARA P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No. 2 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is a retired Sub Registrar, who was working under the appellants. She retired from service on 30.6.2007. Since the disciplinary proceedings against her were not finalised, the terminal benefits due to her have not been paid to her. Even the provisional pension was not paid. In the above background, the writ petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition giving the following directions: "After having heard both sides, I am of the view that the second respondent shall take a decision as to the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Ext.P1 without further delay. Orders in this regard, will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this WA 2/08 -: 2 :- judgment, after hearing the petitioner. In the meanwhile provisional pension as due and admissible to the petitioner will be paid, and orders in this regard will be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment." 2. Going by the above directions, we feel that the appellant cannot have any grievance against those directions. But the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants pointed out that the observations made in paragraph 2 of the judgment are contrary to the provisions of Rule 3A of Part III of the K.S.R. If those observations are allowed to stand, the same will prejudice the rights of the appellants. We notice that based on the said observations, no direction has been issued. So, the contentions of the appellants regarding the observations made by the learned Judge in paragraph 2 of the judgment are kept open. It is unnecessary for us to finally decide on that point in this appeal. 3. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that the directions in the last paragraph should be to the Government and not to the second respondent. Since the writ petitioner retired from service, only the Government can take a decision in WA 2/08 -: 3 :- the matter. The said contention is correct. So, we modify the directions in the third paragraph of the judgment quoted above. Instead of the second respondent, who is the second appellant herein, the first respondent, who is the first appellant herein, shall take a decision as directed by the learned Judge. With the above observations and modifications, this writ appeal is disposed of. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 24/1