IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 2036 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DT.2.6.2006 IN O.P.NO.8694/2003 ------------------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ C.B.THILAKAN, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT (RETIRED), ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA, NOW RESIDING AT SREE SADAN, THONDANKULANGARA, AVALUKKUNNU-6. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB, FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No. 2036 OF 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He retired from the service of the K.S.E.B on 28.2.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the delay from the part of the respondents to release the DCRG due to him, the O.P.No.8694/2003 was filed. He was also aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, as per which, a liability to the tune of Rs.3,16,909/- was fixed against him. After adjusting the amount due to him as DCRG, the balance amount, out of the aforementioned liability, was sought to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the appellant. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P3 on the ground that the liability was not fixed within the time limit fixed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment in O.P.24772/2002. It was also found that the liability has been fixed without notice to him. The learned Single Judge therefore quashed Ext.P3 and directed to release the DCRG with 8% interest from 1.3.2005. Claiming that the direction W.A. No.2036/2006 2 to pay interest should have been from the date of retirement, this appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.S.Easwaran. The direction to pay interest is an order passed in the discretion of the learned Judge. Unless the said exercise of discretion is found to be arbitrary or perverse, the appellate court is not justified in interfering with the same. Further, having regard to the facts of the case, we feel that the refusal to grant interest from the date of retirement upto 1.3.2005, cannot be found fault with. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps