IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21050 of 2008(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- N.RAGHUNATH, RAKESH BHAVAN, ARUVIKUZHY P.O., ANICKADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 696 020. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.S.MOHANDAS SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM - 696 002. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI – R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21050/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P2/730/06 DTD. 26/07/06. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P2/730/06 DTD. 25/09/07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.11/10/07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/05/2008 IN WP(C)NO.10636/08. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P2/18222/04 DTD.20/07/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 10/05/2007 SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT REQUESTING THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALLOT FUNDS FOR MEETING THE PENSIONARY CLAIMS. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 10/07/2007 SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT REQUESTING THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALLOT FUNDS FOR MEETING THE PENSIONARY CLAIMS. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 31/03/2008 SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT REQUESTING THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALLOT FUNDS FOR MEETING THE PENSIONARY CLAIMS. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 13/05/2008 SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT REQUESTING THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALLOT FUNDS FOR MEETING THE PENSIONARY CLAIMS. EXT.R3(E): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 03/06/2008 SENT BY THIS RESPONDENT REQUESTING THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALLOT FUNDS FOR MEETING THE PENSIONARY CLAIMS. EXT.R3(F): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 19/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ALLOT FUNDS TO THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(G): COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING TO TOTAL OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF THIS RESPONDENT AS ON 1/06/08. EXT.R3(H): COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF AUDIT REPORT OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR. /TRUE COPY/ KSS P.A.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21050 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2005, while he was serving as Superintendent in the Cochin Corporation. Shortly after the petitioner retired, by Ext.P5 order dated 20.7.2005, the Director of Urban Affairs fixed the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner and directed the Secretary, Kottayam Municipality, to disburse the amounts. The petitioner submits that the benefits sanctioned as per Ext.P5 were duly disbursed. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 order dated 26.7.2006, the Commuted Value of Pension was enhanced by Rs.20,181/= and the Secretary, Kottayam Municipality, was directed to pay the same and adjust it towards the amount payable by the Municipality to the Central Pension Fund. Later by Ext.P2 order dated 25.9.2007, revised pensionary benefits were also sanctioned to him. The petitioner submits that notwithstanding the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders were issued as early as on W.P.(C) No. 21050/2008 2 26.7.2006 and 25.9.2007 respectively, the amounts payable thereunder have not been disbursed by the Kottayam Municipality. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the revised terminal benefits sanctioned to him as per Exts.P1 and P2, together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum 2. The third respondent, the Secretary of the Kottayam Municipality, has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that in view of its financial position, it is not in a position to pay the additional terminal benefits sanctioned to the petitioner. The third respondent further submits that notwithstanding repeated requests, the Director of Urban Affairs has not made available the requisite funds for disbursement of terminal benefits to the petitioner and others. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. By Ext.P1, the Director of Urban Affairs directed the Secretary of the W.P.(C) No. 21050/2008 3 Kottayam Municipality to pay the sum of Rs.20,181/= sanctioned as additional Commuted Value of Pension to the petitioner, and to adjust the payment made against the contribution payable by the Municipality to the Central Pension Fund. By Ext.P2, the pensionary benefits sanctioned to the petitioner were revised and he was held entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,58,710/=. The Secretary, Kottayam Municipality was directed to pay the amount from the Municipal funds. The Secretary was also informed that the amounts covered by Ext.P2 will be sent later. The third respondent submits that payment as directed in Exts.P1 and P2 was not made, as the Municipality was short of funds and notwithstanding repeated requests, the Director of Urban Affairs did not allot funds to the Municipality. 4. The petitioner retired from service long back on 31.1.2005. The revised pensionary benefits as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders have not been disbursed to the petitioner so far for the reason that Municipality pleads want of funds at its disposal. As held by the Apex Court, pension and gratuity are W.P.(C) No. 21050/2008 4 not longer bounties but a valuable right of the pensioner. Though by Ext.P1, the Director of Urban Affairs had directed the Secretary, Kottayam Municipality to pay the enhanced Commuted Value of Pension and adjust the same towards the amount payable by the Kottayam Municipality to the Central Pension Fund, that direction has not been complied with for the past more than three years. Similarly, the direction issued in Ext.P2 to pay revised pensionary benefits aggregating to Rs.2,58,710/= has also not been complied with. The petitioner who retired nearly four years back cannot be made to wait, till the Municipality improves its financial position. The directions issued by the second respondent in Exts.P1 and P2 are binding on the Municipality. In such circumstances, I find no justification on the part of the Municipality in withholding payment of the additional pensionary benefits sanctioned to the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2. However, taking note of the fact that the Municipality is short of funds, I am inclined to grant to the Kottayam Municipality an opportunity to pay the amounts sanctioned as per Exts.P1 and P2 in two equal monthly instalments. W.P.(C) No. 21050/2008 5 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions. The Secretary, Kottayam Municipality shall disburse the revised pensionary benefits sanctioned to the petitioner as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders in two equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.12.2008 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 15.1.2009. If payment of any one of the instalments, as directed above, is defaulted, the petitioner will be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from this date till date of payment. The Director of Urban Affairs shall, if he has not till date made available to the Kottayam Municipality the amount fixed in Ext.P2, take emergent steps to make available the necessary funds to the Kottayam Municipality. This shall be done on or before 15.12.2008. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.