IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24781 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THANKAPPAN PILLAI C.N. SENIOR SUPERITENDENT (RETIRED) SREE VIHAR, AREEPPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 501 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUGATHAN MS.VARHSA BHASKAR MR.PRASANTH S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, P.T.P. NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24781/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 05/06/2006 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL. P2 : COPY OF ORDER NO.A10 7043/06 DATED 15/06/06 OF R2. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/06/2007 OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/01/2007 TO R2. P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28/11/2007 TO R2. P6 : COPY OF LETTER NO.A10 7043/06 DATED 30/11/2007 OF R2 P7 : COPY OF EXPLANATION DATED 13/12/2007 TO R2. P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/06/2008 TO R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a) : COPY OF LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 29/10/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24781 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a Senior Superintendent in the Directorate of Scheduled Caste Development Department. His pensionary benefits were admitted by the Accountant General by Ext.P1 and his pension was also sanctioned by Ext.P2. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner was sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,12,316/- towards his DCRG. But, the same has not been released for the reason that Non Liability Certificate has not been issued. It is in these circumstances this writ petition is filed. 2. A counter affidavit and an additional affidavit have been filed by the respondents. According to the respondents, during the period when the petitioner was in Office, on account of an order passed by the Director of Scheduled Caste Development Department, an amount of Rs.8,18,48,968/- was spent from the public exchequer. It is stated that such payment was made without Government Sanction and that in order to avoid obtaining WP(C) No.24781/2008 -2- Government sanction, the amount spent was split into less than rupees five lakhs to bring it within the authority of the Director. It is stated that this resulted in recommendation for registration of a case by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. It is also stated that the then Director and the Finance Officer were also placed under suspension. 3. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the affidavits say that the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner in the above matter could be ascertained only after completion of the investigation into the said vigilance case. Therefore, the certificate showing the liability or non-liability of the petitioner could be issued only after completion of the investigation. Along with the additional affidavit filed, the 2nd respondent has produced a communication dated 29/10/2009 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, which states that the investigation of the case is not completed and that more witnesses and accused Officers are to be questioned and documents are to be seized. WP(C) No.24781/2008 -3- 4. From the pleading, it is therefore, evident that though vigilance investigation is in progress, nothing has been unearthed as at present to implicate the petitioner. Therefore, as on date, there is nothing to withhold disbursement of his DCRG due to the petitioner. Even otherwise, now that more than 3 years have passed since the retirement of the petitioner, there is no question of any liability being fixed against him. In the circumstances, there is no reason why the DCRG shall not be disbursed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that he is entitled to be awarded interest, as according to him inordinate delay has already been caused in the disbursement of the DCRG. He relied on the judgments of this Court in State of Kerala v. Antony (1994(2) KLT 314), Board of Revenue v. Parameswaran Nair (2000 (1) KLT 227) & Aravindaksha Panicker v. Accountant General (2007 (4) KLT 1031) in this regard. 6. True, the Apex Court and this Court has been awarded interest, if inordinate and unreasonable delay has been caused in the disbursement of the terminal benefits. The respondents could have been justified in delaying the disbursement, only if there is WP(C) No.24781/2008 -4- something to infer the involvement of the petitioner in the case under investigation. Even as on date, they could not unearth anything. Further, even Ext.R2(a) does not give any indication in the matter. In such circumstances, as at present, the only conclusion is that there was no justification for the delay caused in the disbursement of the DCRG. Therefore, it is declared that the petitioner will be entitled to 9% interest on the DCRG amount due to him. This shall be paid till the date of payment. 7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to disburse the DCRG that is due to the petitioner, along with 9% interest thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that such disbursement shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to recover the amount,m if any that is found to be due from him, once the proceedings under investigation are completed. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg