IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 DBP.No. 33 of 2009() -------------------- IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVEASOM BARD – TDB REPORT NO.72/2009 SUBMITTED BY OMBUDSMAN - SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED. PARTIES: -------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TDB AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. P. GOPAL, SC TDB. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. LAXMI NARAYANAN. BY ADV. SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN. THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - D.B.P. No. 33 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Complaint is received from one Leelamani Amma, 'Thali' attached to Vaikom temple stating that though she retired on 31.8.8.2007, her retirement benefits were not released including gratuity. Ombudsman after considering the matter reported that denial of pension to the complainant will result in serious injustice. There is also suggestion that Accounts Officer may withhold the DCRG and pension may be directed to be paid so that she can meet her daily expenses in her old age. 2. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner of Vaikom group stating that pension has been released including arrears of pension. Likewise provident fund amount also has been paid. What now remains is only DCRG. 3. True that this complainant is a surety for the loan availed by one Ajithkumar and one Reghunath. If they have already committed default, then recovery proceedings will have to be initiated against them. As far as the retired employee is concerned, unless the DBP.33/2009. 2 retired employee has become liable as on the date of retirement by virtue of any loan availed or being a surety to any other transaction, his/her retiral benefits shall not be withheld. However, in case of continuing liability for the principal debtors, in the place of the retired employee, they may be asked to furnish any other surety, who may be in service. This should be taken as a general guideline to be followed in future. As far as DCRG is concerned, final decision may be taken by the Commissioner as expeditiously as possible. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.