IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6099 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.M. VIJAYAN, ASST. ENGINEER RETIRED, MALLOOTHARA HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O., PIRAVAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. FINANCE MANAGER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, FINANCE WING, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.J.KRISHNA KUMAR, SC, KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 6099 of 2009 F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri. P.N.Purushothama Kaimal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.J.Krishna Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority. 2. The petitioner is a pensioner. He retired from service on 31-5- 2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. This writ petition was filed on 24-2-2009 complaining that terminal benefits have not been disbursed. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse terminal benefits along with interest. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 25-3-2004. In the counter affidavit it is stated that though the petitioner retired from service on 31-5-2005, he submitted the pension papers only on 20-10-2006, more than one year after his retirement and therefore payment of commuted value of pension, for which he had applied, could be granted only after medical examination. It is also stated that the application for pension was processed and orders were issued on 19-2-2007 authorizing payment of pension and D.C.R.G. It is further stated that pursuant to examination by the W.P.(C) No. 6099/09 2 Medical Board, payment of commuted value of pension was authorized on 5-9-2008. It is stated that in the meanwhile, revised pensionary benefits were sanctioned on 11-2-209.The respondents also state that immediately thereafter arrears of pension and commuted value of pension and D.C.R.G. were disbursed on 6-3-2009 and 17-3-2009 respectively. 4. The pleadings disclose that terminal benefits due to the petitioner have been paid in full. Therefore, the only question that now remains is the petitioner’s claim for interest for the delayed payment of pensionary benefits. From the pleadings and the materials on record, it cannot be said that there was culpable delay on the part of the respondents in sanctioning and paying terminal benefits. The petitioner himself was responsible for the delay. He submitted the pension papers only 16 months after his retirement. Within three months thereafter, orders were issued sanctioning pension and D.C.R.G. Since the application for payment of pension was made more than one year after retirement, commuted value of pension could be sanctioned only after medical examination. Some delay occurred in conducting the medical examination and orders could be passed only by September, 2008. In the meanwhile, the pensionary benefits were revised. Therefore, revised orders had to be issued. This was done and the entire arrears paid in March, 2009. Under these circumstances, I am not persuaded to agree with the W.P.(C) No. 6099/09 3 learned counsel for the petitioner that there was culpable delay on the part of the respondents in disbursing the terminal benefits. Such being the situation, I find no reason to award to the petitioner interest for the delayed payment of pension. In the result, the writ petition is closed as infructuous. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.