IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19273 of 2005(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR.V.K.KRISHNAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH(RTD), AMBADY, MAMALA P.O., THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD, SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA, SMT.V.K.SHEMEENA. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19273/2005-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O. (RT).3220/04/H&FWD DTD. 17/11/2004. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26/11/2004 IN W.P.(C). NO. 27997/04 (G) OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. P-12/PEN.A/799/BC/04-05/1103 DTD. 11/01/2005 FROM THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/01/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B-1509/04 DTD. 01/12/2004 WITH COPY OF NON- LIABILITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 01/12/2004. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 31/85/FIN. DTD. 10/04/1985. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.19273 of 2005 ====================================== Dated this the 5th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a pensioner. While the petitioner was working as Deputy District Medical Officer of Health, he applied for voluntary retirement on 22.8.2001. In his application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner had expressed his intention to retire from service on 31.12.2001. The petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was one made in terms of Rule 56(1) of Part III KSR. When the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement, he was on leave. The request made by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted only by Ext.P1 order dated 17.11.2004 with effect from 31.12.2001. The petitioner's pensionary claims were settled only by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 11.1.2005. Even thereafter, pension and gratuity were not disbursed. This writ petition was thereupon filed seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to issue orders granting pensionary benefits to this W.P.(C)19273/2005 2 petitioner with effect from 1.1.2002 and to issue Non- liability Certificate to the concerned treasury within a reasonable period as decided by this Hon'ble Court. ii) direct the respondents to allow 12% interest with effect from 1.1.2002 till the actual disbursement of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. 2. I have heard Sri.C.S.Abdul Sammad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was solely on account of the delay on the part of the State Government in acting on his application for voluntary retirement submitted in terms of Rule 56 (1) of Part III KSR that the settlement of his pensionary claims was delayed. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand contended that as the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was accepted only on 17.11.2004, there was delay in sanctioning pensionary benefits. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that terminal benefits payable to the petitioner were actually disbursed on 8.7.2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that though the retirement benefits were sanctioned on 11.1.2005, it was not disbursed till 8.7.2005 and that the petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay and latches on the part of the official respondents in accepting his application for voluntary retirement and in paying his terminal W.P.(C)19273/2005 3 benefits. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala and others v M.Padmanabhan Nair (AIR 1985 SC 356). 3. I have considered the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Rule 56(1) of Part III KSR states that an employee who retires voluntarily will be granted retirement pension, if he has given notice in writing to the appointing authority or the pension sanctioning authority of his intention to retire at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner applied on 22.8.2001 with the intention to retire from service on 31.12.2001. There was thus three months notice in terms of Rule 56(1) of Part III KSR. However, for unexplained reasons, the petitioner's request was accepted only on 17.11.2004 when Ext.P1 order was issued allowing him to retire from service with effect from 31.12.2001. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not attended duty after 31.12.2001. Due to the delay in issuing Ext.P1, there was delay in settling the petitioner's retirement benefits as well. Though this writ petition was presented on 27.6.2005, the official respondents have not filed a counter affidavit explaining the long delay in granting the petitioner's W.P.(C)19273/2005 4 request for permission to retire from service voluntarily with effect from 31.12.2001. The Apex Court has in State of Kerala and others v M.Padmanabhan Nair (AIR 1985 SC 356) held that where the payment of terminal benefits is unduly delayed, the pensioner is entitled to be compensated by payment of interest and that the interest would run on the dues at the expiry of two months from the date of retirement. Following the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the State Government has issued Ext.P6 circular dated 10.4.1985 giving effect to the decision of the Apex Court. 4. After hearing arguments on either side, I am satisfied that there was inordinate delay on the part of the official respondents in dealing with and disposing of the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement. It took the Government nearly three years to decide whether the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner should be accepted or not. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner's application was in any way defective. Even after the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was accepted, there was delay in settling his terminal benefits and the terminal benefits were paid to him only on 8.7.2005 after this writ petition was filed. In these circumstances, while taking note of the fact that the terminal benefits payable to W.P.(C)19273/2005 5 the petitioners have been disbursed, I direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the death cum retirement gratuity for the period from 1.1.2005 to 8.7.2005. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/